2014 (6) TMI 1075 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Arbitral Award - seeking relief for appointment of Advocate Commissioners to seize and possess the hypothecated equipment - HELD THAT - This Court without traversing upon the merits of the matter and also taking note of a primordial fact that the Respondent/Defendant is ready and willing to hand over the machineries concerned in O.S.A. Nos. 60 to 62 of 2014 (arising out of A. Nos. 441 442 and 444 of 2013) to the Appellant/Applicant/Plaintiff in furtherance of substantial cause of Justice and on balance directs the Respondent/Defendant to hand over/entrust the custody of the machineries concerned as stated supra to the Appellant/Plaintiff s Authorised Representative on or before 16.06.2014 at a place and time to be specified by the Appellant/Applicant/Plaintiff without fail. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal against the Common Order dated 10.02.2014 in Application Nos. 441, 442, 444 & 445 of 2013.
2. Validity of the Appellant's claim for appointment of Advocate Commissioners to seize and possess hypothecated equipment.
3. Respondent's defense against the Award dated 03.07.2013 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Disposition of O.S.A. Nos. 60 to 62 of 2014 and O.S.A. No. 63 of 2014.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant challenged the Common Order of 10.02.2014, seeking the appointment of Advocate Commissioners to seize the hypothecated equipment and issue a prohibitory order. The Learned Single Judge observed the Respondent's unfair refusal to pay the admitted liability, leading to the dismissal of the Applications.

2. The Appellant contended that the machineries were hypothecated by the Respondent, who defaulted in payment. Referring to the Respondent's letter dated 03.07.2013 promising payment, the Appellant argued for legal actions, including the execution of Advocate Commissioner warrant.

3. The Respondent filed a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the Award dated 03.07.2013, claiming a valid defense against the Appellant's applications under Section 9 of the Act for interim protection measures.

4. The Court, noting the Respondent's willingness to hand over machineries in O.S.A. Nos. 60 to 62 of 2014 to the Appellant, directed the transfer of custody by a specified date. However, O.S.A. No. 63 of 2014 regarding a specific machinery was scheduled for a separate full-fledged hearing due to the Respondent's refusal to part with it for business reasons.