Allowed

Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Anr. v. Iag Glass Co. Ltd.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016FAO(OS)/179/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding service of notice and interim order. Court granted injunction directing respondent not to part with possession of finished goods until award amount is satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed respondent not to part possession with finished product in the custody and ownership of the respondent till the amount as per the award is satisfied.

Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Anr. Vs Iag Glass Co. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO(OS) 179/2015

¶4

LAKSHMI FLOAT GLASS LTD & ANR ..... Appellants Represented by: Mr.Mukul Gupta, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Vibhor Garg, Mr.Tushar Gupta and Ms.Saumya Sharma, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

IAG GLASS CO LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: None

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

¶8

O R D E R % 12.01.2016

¶9

Notice issued by this Court was attempted to be served upon six directors of the respondent-company. One of them named Vijay Joshi refused to accept the notice issued. Notice could not be served upon three directors. Qua two directors service report is awaited. As per law a notice sent at the registered office of a company would be treated as service upon the company. It is the duty of a company to make provisions at its registered office to receive notices sent to the company.

¶10

Grievance of the appellant in the appeal is to limited interim order granted by the learned Single Judge while issuing notice in a petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, FAO(OS) 179/2015 page 1 of 2

¶11

The appellant has an award dated March 25, 2015 in its favour. The award is against the respondent. As per the award the respondent is liable to pay to the appellant a sum of ` 37,17,23,078/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crore Seventeen Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seventy Eight only) together with interest at the rate indicated in the award.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant informs that the respondent has not challenged the award and after the notice was issued by this Court the respondent has started effecting delivery of finished goods to the appellant and as of today the appellant has received finished goods worth about ` 3.5 crores.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant informs that the respondent has not filed any objections to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶14

Since the respondent has chosen not to enter appearance and oppose the instant appeal, noting the facts above, we are of the opinion that case is made out to grant an injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondent as prayed for.

¶15

The appeal is accordingly disposed of directing respondent not to part possession with, otherwise than to the appellant, of finished product in the custody and ownership of the respondent till the amount as per the award is satisfied.

¶16

No costs.

¶17

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

¶18

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

¶19

page 2 of 2

¶20

JANUARY 12, 2016/ mamta FAO(OS) 179/2015

Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Anr. v. Iag Glass Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Anr. v. Iag Glass Co. 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

Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lok Nayak Hospital

M/S Ariba Inc. & Anr. Vs Jsl Limited

M/S Ariba Inc. & Anr. Vs Jsl Ltd.

Vijay Verma Vs Krishan Kumar Verma & Ors.

M/S Today Hotels (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Intecture India Designs Pvt. Ltd.

Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.

M/S. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs Radico Khaitan Ltd.

B S Oberoi Vs P S Oberoi & Ors.

Sansar Chand Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Balram Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Seraz Ali Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Kanungo Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Rgv Film Factory & Ors.

Partho Bhattacharya Vs Ld. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-Iii & Anr.

M/S. Brima Sagar Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs Radico Khaitan Ltd.