9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Prima facie case and irreparable injury 3. Application of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) principles Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court: The appellant contended that the jurisdiction clause in the agreement specified that the Hyderabad Courts would have final jurisdiction, thus excluding other courts, including the Madras High Court. However, the objection to jurisdiction was not pressed during the initial hearing before the learned single Judge. The Court noted that the agreements were signed, goods and materials were sent, and payments were made at Chennai, creating a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The Court emphasized that as per Section 21 of the CPC, objections to jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Since the appellant did not press the jurisdictional objection during the initial trial, they waived their right to raise it at the appellate stage. The Court cited Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu to support the principle that objections to jurisdiction, if not raised timely, are considered waived. 2. Prima facie Case and Irreparable Injury: The Court examined whether the first respondent made out a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory reliefs. The appellant argued that they had a Power Purchase Agreement with the Garnishee, ensuring continuous earnings of Rs. 80 lakhs per month, which negated any apprehension of irreparable injury to the first respondent. The Court agreed with the appellant, noting that even if the first respondent succeeded in the arbitration proceedings, there would be no difficulty in recovering the money due to the continuous payments from the Garnishee. The Court concluded that the first respondent failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or irreparable damage, and thus, the prohibitory order was not justified. 3. Application of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Principles: The appellant argued that the principles of Order 38 Rule 5 and Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC should apply, as the relief sought was in the nature of attachment before judgment and injunction. The Court acknowledged that while the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not explicitly incorporate these provisions, their principles are applicable. The Court referenced I.T.I. Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd., which held that the CPC's procedural aspects should guide the exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act. The Court also cited a Delhi High Court decision, Goel Associates v. Jivan Bima Rashtriya Avas Samiti Ltd., which supported the application of CPC principles in arbitration proceedings. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the prohibitory order of the learned single Judge was set aside. The Court held that the appellant had waived their jurisdictional objection by not pressing it during the initial hearing. Furthermore, the first respondent failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable injury, and the principles of the CPC applied to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, the interim reliefs sought by the first respondent were denied.
|
