Allowed

Air Ports Authority of India v. M/S. Sreenath Enterprises

Bombay HC13 Mar 2009ARA/28/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the arbitration appeal and set aside the District Judge's interim injunction order. The court held that since joint measurements were completed and the respondent's claim was quantified in monetary terms, no further injunction was warranted, allowing the appeal process to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The order of injunction dated 11th August 2008 was vacated; the appeal was allowed; the impugned order was set aside.

Air Ports Authority of India Vs M/S. Sreenath Enterprises — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

bsb

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32 OF 2008

¶4

Air Ports Authority of India

¶5

... Appellant

¶6

v/s

¶7

M/s.Sreenath Enterprises... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Himanshu Kode with H.E.H.Newme i/by The Law Point
for the appellant.

¶9

Mr.A.B.Tejane for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM:DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶11

DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2009

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. In an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Judge, by his
order dated 11.8.2008 passed the following directions:-

¶14

"The opponents or anybody claiming through them
are restrained from changing or disturbing, in
any manner, the status of the construction work
carried out by the applicant until the applicant
get an opportunity to approach the arbitrator to
seek necessary reliefs in respect of the
construction work."

¶15

2. On 6th February, 2009 when the civil application
came up before this Court together with the arbitration

¶16

¶17

appeal, the Court passed the following order:-

¶18

"The sole Arbitrator by his order dated 28th
January, 2009 directed the parties to carry out
joint measurements of all the exposed work and
to submit a signed document showing the
measurements by 20th February, 2009. Counsel
appearing for the applicant and counsel
appearing for the respondent are agreed that
joint measurements shall be carried out on
Monday, 9th February, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. at the
site in question viz. Lohgaon Airport at Pune.
The respondent has agreed to depute an
authorized representative for the said purpose.
It has been stated on behalf of the applicant
that the claim filed by the respondent before
the learned Arbitrator is only for damages.
Upon the completion of the joint measurements,
there is no reason why the applicant should not
be allowed to complete the process of calling
for fresh tenders in accordance with its
advertisement dated 30th June, 2008. There
shall accordingly be an ad-interim order in
terms of prayer clause (a)(ii)."

¶19

Prayer clause (a)(ii) permitted the appellant to
complete the process of calling for fresh tenders in
accordance with its advertisement dated 30th June, 2008.

¶20

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and the respondent have informed the Court
that in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 6th
February, 2009, joint measurements were carried out by
the parties. Since the respondent has now moved the
Arbitral Tribunal and joint measurements have been
carried out on 20th February, 2009, the order of
injunction that was issued on 11th August, 2008 need not

¶21

¶22

continue to remain in force any further. The claim of
the respondent in the arbitral proceeding (as would be
seen from the abstract for claims annexed at page No.87
of the paper-book) has been quantified in monetary terms
at Rs.3,69,79,944/- upon which interest at the rate of
18% per annum has been claimed. The claim includes a
claim on account of loss of business and loss of profit.
Since the claim has been quantified in monetary terms,
no order of injunction is warranted. The claimant will
have to substantiate the claim on the basis of evidence
before the Arbitral Tribunal. Joint measurements have
already been carried out by consent of parties.

¶23

4. In that view of the matter, since joint measurements
have already been carried out by the parties and the
parties are before the Arbitral Tribunal, the order of
injunction would have to be vacated. The appeal shall
accordingly stand allowed. The impugned order dated
11th August, 2008 shall stand set aside.

¶24

5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the civil
application does not survive and is accordingly disposed
of.

Air Ports Authority of India v. M/S. Sreenath Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Air Ports Authority of India v. M/S. Sreenath Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Govind Tidke Vs the Collector, Thane District and Ors.

Maqbulbi Sheikh Mohammed Yusuf and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Bhusawal Railway Passengers Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anil K. Gaikwad Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and

M/S. Microtex India Ltd. Vs Indian Newspaper Society and Another

Dena Bank Vs M/S. L.Natwarlal and Co. and 2 Others