The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an amended application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held by the Commercial Court regarding preservation of auctioned scrap lots post-re-auction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:69089
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5511 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Dixit
Respondent :- The Presiding Officer Commercial Court No.2 Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Trivedi,Parimal Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Annexure No. 13 to the application, praying for orders as an interim measure pending the appointment of an Arbitrator. The prayer (c) of the applicant as is under:-
"(c) To allow the applicant to lift the Scrap Lot in question from the premises of the Opposite Parties which is located in between BSB-LOT DN Line KM-774/18774/20/Uttar Pradesh as the entire total sales value has already been paid within the specified time without insisting on payment of Ground rent, which will be subject to the final outcome of Arbitration Proceedings initiated strictly in accordance with law."
"d(i)- To direct the Opposite parties to ensure that the Scrap Lot in question identified as Lot A-3 said to have been lifted by the prospective bidder on 18.09.2023 be maintained and preserved in its original condition."
for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act has been moved so far, and only a notice for appointment of an Arbitrator has been given. Prima facie, in view of the fact that the goods in question have already been re-auctioned, the petitioner would be entailed to claim damages and can not claim ownership of the goods, which have already been auctioned. The Commercial Court has rightly rejected the application for amendment, which was even otherwise, covered by the relief no. (c) as claimed by the petitioner in his application under Section 9 of the Act as quoted herein above. I do not see any good ground for interference, however, after the final decision is rendered by the Commercial Court, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act.
Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Arun
Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Commercial Court's rejection of an application to amend a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to claim preservation of goods after their re-auction by the respondents?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Kumar Dixit
The Presiding Officer Commercial Court No.2 Lko.
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Arun Kumar
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
