Partly allowed

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. v. Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2014APP/397/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal challenging an order directing the release of logistics goods. The court ordered the release of goods at Ahmedabad, Jaipur, and Varanasi but directed the appellant to retain goods at the Ludhiana warehouse until the arbitrator decides the dispute over valuation and claims.

What did the court decide?

Released goods at Ahmedabad, Jaipur, and Varanasi; goods at Ludhiana warehouse to be retained until disputations before the arbitrator are resolved.

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Emerson Network Power India Pvt… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 of 4 APP(L).459.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL (L) NO.459 OF 2014 WITH

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1695 OF 2014

¶5

MRC Logistics India Private Limited Appellant (Org.Respondent)

¶6

versus

¶7

Emerson Network India Private Limited Respondent (Org.Petitioner)

¶8

Mr.Shailesh Shah, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Y.R.Shah and S.S.Patwardhan i/by Y.R.Shah for Appellant. Mr.Shiraz Rustomjee, Dr.Advocate with Mr.Mustafa Doctor, Jai Chhabria with Mr.Zerick Dastur, Ms.Delna Aga and Ms.Khursheed Vajifdar i/by J.Sagar Associates for Respondent.

¶9

PC :

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order dated 18 July 2014 passed in Arbitration Petition No.874 of 2014 under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with order dated 22 July 2014 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No.1657 of 2014 in Arbitration Petition No.874 of 2014 respectively.

¶11

The Respondent herein (original Petitioner in arbitration petition) entered into thirteen warehousing and distribution agreements with the Appellant (original Respondent in arbitration

¶12

2 of 4 APP(L).459.2014

¶13

petition) by which the Appellant agreed to act as logistics service provider for warehousing operation, secondary distribution and unloading at site for the 4G project of Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, for which the the Respondent herein has been engaged by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. The dispute between the parties is in respect of warehousing charges. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondent has already paid Rs.68 lakhs to the Appellant. The Appellant's claim now is for the balance amount of Rs.1.07 crores. The original Petitioner (Respondent herein) contended that the goods were lying at Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Ludhiana and Varanasi warehouses and the value of those goods is Rs.10.71 crores. Hence, the Appellant cannot be allowed to hold on all the goods when Appellant's claim is only of Rs.1.07 crores. The learned Single Judge has accordingly by the impugned orders dated 18 July 2014 and 22 July 2014 directed the Appellant to permit the Respondent herein to remove the goods lying at the warehouses at Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Ludhiana and Varanasi. As far as goods at Ludhiana warehouse are concerned, the learned Single Judge has directed the Appellant to release the goods except the goods worth Rs.1.07 crores.

¶14

Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant has challenged the orders on the ground that the Appellant has statutory lien under Section 170 of the Contract Act and that the Appellant is only to retain the goods so long as its outstanding amount is not paid. It is further contended that the Appellant does not accept the valuation indicated by the original Petitioner. It is submitted that if the Appellant is not paid off its dues and the Appellant is compelled to

¶15

3 of 4 APP(L).459.2014

¶16

retain the goods, they may not fetch the amount due and payable to the Appellant.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent (original Petitioner) has opposed the appeal and supported the order of learned Single Judge and has also contended that the appeal is not maintainable as the statements were made by the learned counsel for Appellant for releasing the goods.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we are of the view that the statements were made by the learned counsel for Appellant in response to the directions given by the learned Single Judge as to when the directions will be complied with. However, in view of the dispute about valuation of the goods, we are inclined to modify the direction given by the learned Single Judge in respect of goods lying at Ludhiana warehouse.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and while confirming the directions given by the learned Single Judge directing the Appellant to release the goods at the warehouses at Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Varanasi, we direct that the goods lying at Ludhiana warehouse need not be released by the Appellant till the learned Arbitrator decides the disputes between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Respondent (original Petitioner) states that Mr.M.P.Rao, Senior Advocate practicing in this Court is being appointed as sole arbitrator. He further states that the Respondent is

¶21

4 of 4 APP(L).459.2014

¶22

also going to make a claim of atleast Rs.5 crores before the learned arbitrator.

¶23

Learned counsel for original Petitioner states that his client would like to move the learned arbitrator with an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for release of goods lying at warehouse at Ludhiana. Learned counsel for Appellant opposes the request.

¶24

We are not expressing any opinion but we make it clear that if and when the Respondent herein (original Petitioner) makes any such application, the learned arbitrator may decide the same in accordance with law.

¶25

The appeal is disposed of in above terms. In view of this order, Arbitration Petition No.874 of 2014 also stands disposed of.

¶26

In view of this order, the Appellant shall release forthwith the goods lying at Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Varanasi warehouses and in case Appellant does not release the goods by 9 August 2014, the Respondent herein (original Petitioner) will be at liberty to take assistance of local Police.

¶27

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶29

MST

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. v. Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrc Logistics India Pvt.Ltd. v. Emerson Network Power India Pvt. Ltd.

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

Pradeep Prahlad Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Anis Ahmed and 15 Others Vs M/S. Aftab Construction and Another

Royal Cushion Vinyl Products Limited Vs Bhf-Bank Aktiengesellschaft

Vinod Prakash Goel and Another Vs M/S. K and M Sheltors Pvt.Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Radhakrishnan Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.