Dismissed

Gx Technology Corporation v. Directoate General of Hydrocarbons

Delhi HC13 Nov 2019FAO(OS) (COMM)/229/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's order refusing modification of a consent-interim order. The Court held that the earlier order was based on party consent and non-modifiable, rendering the subsequent application and the appeal impermissible, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; the underlying IA No.8658/2019 remains dismissed.

Gx Technology Corporation Vs Directoate General of Hydrocarbons — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 13^th November, 2019

¶4

- FAO(OS) (COMM) 229/2019

¶5

GX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Hiroo Advani, Ms. Mahi Mehta, Ms. Aastha Jain, Mr. Abhay Singh & Mr. Tariq Khan, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HYDROCARBONS..... Respondent Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASG with Mr. Jatinder Cheema, Mr. Akshat Razdan & Mr.Viplav Acharya, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

¶11

This appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.8658/2019 in O.M.P. (COMM) 445/2018. The order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the aforesaid IA preferred by this appellant is dated 5^th July, 2019 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this appeal).

¶12

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶13

 An agreement was entered into between Union of India and this FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019 Page 1 of 6

¶14

appellant in the year 2005. There were several clauses in the said agreement which prohibits selling of data and survey map etc.

¶15

Second agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 2008. After entering into second agreement, Union of India came to know that this appellant grossly violated the terms of agreement by selling away geo seismic certificate and maps etc. to other companies and, hence, agreement of the year 2008 was terminated.

¶16

As per the arbitration clause, arbitration proceedings were initiated. Arbitral Award was given on 26^th July, 2018 which was in favour of GX Technology Corporation (appellant).

¶17

Being aggrieved by the Arbitral Award dated 26^th July, 2018, Union of India preferred a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being O.M.P. (COMM) 445/2018 before the learned Single Judge of this Court along with stay application being IA No.14668/2018.

¶18

Notice was issued and the parties were heard by the learned Single Judge. An order dated 1^st November, 2018 was passed with consent of the parties which reads as under:

¶19

“ I.A. Appl. No. 14669/2018 (for exemption)

¶20

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. I.A. stands disposed of.

¶21

LA. No. 14668/2018 (for stay)

¶22

2. Notice.

¶23

3. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

¶24

4. Till the final disposal of the present petition it is agreed as under:-

¶25

(i) Any data which was lying or was available to the respondent under the 2005 Agreement entered into between the parties, though the respondent states that all such data has already been delivered by it to the petitioner, on behalf of the

¶26

FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019 Page 2 of 6

¶27

respondent it is stated that such data received under the 2005 Agreement will be deposited by them in a sealed envelope in this Court. A copy of the data in a sealed envelope will also be handed over to the petitioner under the signatures of the authorised representatives of both the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent will not use any data received by it under the 2005 Agreement for any commercial purpose of any sale or assignment or transfer for consideration, and on behalf of the respondent it is stated that it is not doing so. (ii) The amount which is lying in the escrow account on account of the interim orders passed in the arbitration proceedings will continue to remain in the escrow account subject to final orders which are to be passed in the main petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶28

(iii) The respondent shall not in any manner sell, transfer, assign or in any manner use the data which is available to it under the 2008 Agreement except upon consent of the petitioner with respect to the customer to whom such data has to be sold or assigned or transferred, etc. and additionally the price which will be payable for the data under the 2008 Agreement will be a price which would be consented to by the petitioner. When such a sale/transfer is made of the data under the 2008 Agreement the said amount will also be deposited in the escrow account as detailed hereinafter.

¶29

(iv) In case any data available to the respondent under the 2008 Agreement has been sold or transferred or assigned or in any manner transferred for consideration or other commercial reasons to any third party from the date of passing of the impugned Award on 26.7.2018 till date, then such amount received by the respondent will be deposited as per the modalities detailed in the interim order in the arbitration proceedings by putting the amount in the Escrow Account No. 37548370113, Account Name-DGH GXT ESCROW ACCOUNT, Account type; current account, IFSC Code: SBIN0050203, BSR Code: 0025203, MICR Code: 110002742, SWIFT Code: SBININBBP24.

¶30

5. LA. No. 14668/2018 is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶31

FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019 Page 3 of 6

¶32

O.M.P. (COMM) 445/2018

¶33

6. List the main petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for arguments on 14^th December, 2018.

¶34

7. Parties are noticed that with respect to all arguments they propose to raise in the main petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act all necessary pleadings, documents, etc. as available in the arbitration proceedings shall be positively filed by them in this Court within a period of two weeks from today, and this order is passed so that the bulky arbitration record need not be called by this Court.”

¶35

Thereafter this present appellant had moved an application being IA No.74/2019 in O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018 for the modification of the order dated 1^st November, 2018. This IA was unconditionally withdrawn by this appellant and the same was accordingly disposed of as not pressed by the learned Single Judge on 8^th January, 2019.

¶36

Thereafter written submissions were filed by this appellant in O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018.

¶37

One more IA was preferred by this appellant being IA No.8658/2019 for modification of the IA No.74/2019 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5^th July, 2019 (Annexure P- 1). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order dated 5^th July, 2019 in IA 8658/2019 in O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018, the present appeal has been preferred by this appellant.

¶38

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that IA No.8658/2019 was preferred for the modification of the order dated 1^st November, 2018, which is not permissible in law as order dated 1^st November, 2018 was passed with the consent of the parties. The learned Single Judge is hearing the main

¶39

FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019 Page 4 of 6

¶40

petition being O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018. Written submissions have already been filed by this appellant and the next date of hearing of the O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018 is 19^th November, 2019. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this appeal and to modify the order passed by this Court in IA No. 8658/2019.

¶41

No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding IA No.8658/2019 vide order dated 5^th July, 2019.

¶42

Much has been argued by learned ASG appearing for Union of India that the data collected by this appellant has been sold away to EXXON and as per order dated 1^st November, 2018 in IA No.14668/2018 in O.M.P.(COMM) 445/2018, the said amount is to be deposited by this appellant in Escrow account whereas this appellant is disputing such deposition of the amount on the plea that main matter under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending before the learned Single Judge.

¶43

We are abstaining from analysing the facts, but suffice it will be to say that earlier IA No.74/2019, preferred by this appellant for modification of the order dated 1^st November, 2018 was withdrawn unconditionally and hence, second application being IA No.8658/2019 is not tenable at law. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing IA No.8658/2019 vide order dated 5^th July, 2019. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and hence see no reason to entertain this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶44

FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019 Page 5 of 6

¶45

C.M. No. 41949/2019

¶46

In view of the final order passed in FAO (OS)(COMM) No.229/2019, this application stands disposed of.

¶47

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶49

NOVEMBER 13, 2019
ns

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

FAO (OS) (COMM) 229/2019

Gx Technology Corporation v. Directoate General of Hydrocarbons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gx Technology Corporation v. Directoate General of Hydrocarbons

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

Vedpal & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Relite Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Bhartiya Railway Loading Unloading Workers Union Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hironmay Kandar & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sh. Sujeet Swami and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State & Anr.