9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Grant Interim Measures 3. Arbitrability of Claims Involving Mortgaged Properties 4. Entitlement to Interim Measures under Section 9 Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 The petitioner sought the appointment of a Court Receiver for various properties, an injunction, and an order against the respondents to secure the petitioner's claim with interest. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the enforcement of mortgage claims is non-arbitrable. The court addressed this by stating that the petitioner can choose not to file for enforcement of the mortgage in arbitration and can file a money claim instead. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Grant Interim Measures The respondents argued that the court lacked jurisdiction as the mortgaged properties were outside Mumbai and the respondents operated from Hyderabad. The court held that since the loan was disbursed from Mumbai, the agreement was executed in Mumbai, and the parties agreed to Mumbai's jurisdiction, the court had the authority to entertain the petitions. 3. Arbitrability of Claims Involving Mortgaged Properties The respondents cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home Finance Limited to argue that mortgage enforcement is non-arbitrable. The court clarified that if the petitioner does not seek mortgage enforcement in arbitration, the issue of arbitrability does not arise. The court emphasized that it is the petitioner's prerogative to decide the nature of claims to be filed in arbitration. 4. Entitlement to Interim Measures under Section 9 The court examined whether the petitioner made a case for interim measures akin to attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. The court found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case for interim measures due to the respondents' financial instability and the risk of asset dissipation. Consequently, the court granted interim measures to secure the petitioner's claims. Orders: ARBP No. 1321 of 2012: - Respondent No. 1 to furnish security of Rs. 101,71,03,644/- within four weeks. - Court Receiver appointed for properties described in Exhibit-P and Exhibit-Q, with respondents as agents on usual terms. - Injunction against respondents from alienating properties described in Exhibit-P and Exhibit-Q. - Attachment of bank accounts and injunction in terms of prayer clause (f) and (g). - Respondents to disclose assets on oath within two weeks. ARBP No. 1095 of 2012: - Respondents to furnish security of Rs. 25,02,61,350/- within four weeks. - Court Receiver appointed for properties described in Exhibit-G, with respondents as agents on usual terms. - Injunction against respondents from alienating properties described in Exhibit-D and Exhibit-G. - Respondents to disclose unencumbered property on oath within two weeks. Both petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
