Allowed

Millennium Engineers and Contractors Private Limited..(Orig Resp in Ara) v. Compulink Systems Limited (No Known as Glodyne Tec

Bombay HC12 Mar 2013CAR/49/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the applicant to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent in the arbitration appeal upon furnishing a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount plus 9% interest for a year, extending the deadline for the application.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw Rs.65,00,000/- upon furnishing a bank guarantee with 9% p.a. interest for a year.

Millennium Engineers and Contractors Private Limited..(Orig Resp… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

car.49-2012

¶2

¶3

acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2012 IN

¶5

ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2012

¶6

Millenium Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

..Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Compulink Systems Limited & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. V.P. Vaze i/b City Legal, for Applicant. Mr. Varun Mamniya i/b Rajani Associates, for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2013.

¶12

PC.

¶13

1 By this Civil Application, the applicant (original respondent)

¶14

seeks permission to withdraw Rs.65,00,000/- (rupees sixty five lakh) deposited by the respondent on 5.11.2012, on furnishing the bank guarantee.

¶15

2 It is not in dispute that in the arbitration proceeding filed by the applicant, an Award came to be made in favour of the applicant which was impugned by the respondent by filing application under section 34 of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned District Judge passed

1 / 3

car.49-2012

an order dated on 18.7.2012 and dismissed the said arbitration application filed by the respondent. By an order dated 11.9.2012 passed by this Court, the Arbitration Appeal No.41 of 2012 filed by the respondent came to be admitted. The respondent undertook to deposit an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in this Court. On such undertaking given by the respondent herein, the applicant herein was directed not to proceed with the execution proceeding. By an order dated 10.10.2012, time to deposit the said amount of Rs.65,00,000/- was extended.

¶20

3 It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2012, the respondent has already deposited a sum of Rs.65,00,000/in this Court and the same has been invested.

¶21

4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as the applicant has succeeded before the learned Arbitrator as well before the learned District Judge, on furnishing bank guarantee of the equivalent amount deposited in this Court with interest @ 9% p.a., applicant be permitted to withdraw the said amount. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the said application on the ground that the respondent has chances of succeeding in the appeal and amount has been already invested by the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court pursuant to order dated 11.9.2012 read with order dated 10.10.2012.

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

3 car.49-2012

¶24

5 In my view on dismissal of application under Section 34 filed by the respondents herein, the Award would have force of a decree. This Court has stayed the implementation of such Award as well as order passed by the learned District Judge on the respondent depositing the decretal amount. In my view it would be appropriate if the applicant is allowed to withdraw the said amount deposited by the respondent with interest accrued thereon within 4 weeks from the date of the applicant furnishing the bank guarantee of nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which would include interest at 9% from the date of withdrawal of the amount initially for a period of 1 year and thereafter for a like period after obtaining leave of this Court. Bank guarantee shall be furnished within four weeks from today. Hearing of the appeal is expedited.

¶25

6 Civil Application is disposed in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that if the bank guarantee of nationalized bank is not submitted by the applicant within the time as directed, the application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶26

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶27

3 / 3

Millennium Engineers and Contractors Private Limited..(Orig Resp in Ara) v. Compulink Systems Limited (No Known as Glodyne Tec

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Millennium Engineers and Contractors Private Limited..(Orig Resp in Ara) v. Compulink Systems Limited (No Known as Glodyne Tec

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kiran Shankar Narwani @ Rajshree Vs Sushila B. Thacker and Sonal Z. Motta

Aman Palace Co-Operative Housing Society and 2 Ors. Vs Union of India and 6ORS.

F.M.Chinoy and Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Gulmohar Builders Vs the Director, Maharashtra State Text Book Production and Curriculum Research Corporation and Anr.

Gulmohar Builders Vs the Director, Maharashtra State Text Book Production and Curriculum Research Corporation and Anr.

Gulmohar Builders Vs the Director, Maharashtra State Text Book Production and Curriculum Research Corporation and Anr.