0

The respondents through their counsel made a statement that they do not intend to create any third party rights: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

The Review Petition stands disposed of by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of VIRENDRA SINGH MEHTA V. HEMANT MEHTA through HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

FACTS OF THE CASE
This review petition has been filed by the review petitioners under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for review of the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed in Arbitration Appeal No.35/2018. The case of the review petitioners is that the aforesaid Arbitration Appeal (AA No.35/2018) was filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Indore in Miscellaneous Judicial Case (MJC No.02/2016), under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1996), whereby the application filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction was rejected. there was no interim relief in favour of the appellants is contrary to the record, as the lower Court had passed an interim order on 13.05.2016, against creation of third party rights, and in AA No.20/2018, which was also disposed of by this Court along with AA No.35/2018 on 04.05.2022, and the respondents through their counsel made a statement that they do not intend to create any third party rights, however, these facts escaped the attention of this Court and thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record while passing the aforesaid order under review.

JUDGEMENT
From the record, it is apparent that there was an interim order in operation by the lower Court dated 13.05.2016; and in AA No.20/2018 also which was a tagged along with the present appeal (AA No.35/2018), the parties have agreed not to create any third party rights. Thus, it is apparent that the observation of this Court, that there was no interim relief in favour of the petitioners constitutes an error on the face of the record, which deserves to be rectified. It cannot be said that merely passing an interim order at any prior stage, before the final award is passed, would suffice and would achieve the very purpose of passing an interim order under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, in fact, in the considered opinion of this court, an interim order must be of such a nature so that it continues to safeguard the interest of the claimant till the award is enforced and it is the court’s duty to ensure that the arbitration proceedings reach to its logical ends by passing such interim orders which ensure that the award is executed in the letter and spirit of Section 9 of the Act of 1996. With the aforesaid observations, the Review Petition No.587/2022 stands disposed of. All the other pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat