9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that the appellant was not entitled to interim injunction in aid of his claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell iron ore. 4. The factual background of the case is as follows. 5. The appellant herein secured a mining lease originally from the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) in the year 1996. However, the appellant could not secure the necessary approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Therefore, the mining operation had to be kept under suspension. 6. Sometime in the year 2005-2006, at the instance of the respondent herein, the appellant entered into two agreements. According to the appellant (we say so because what exactly is the purport of the agreements is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in terminating the agreement for sale of iron ore. The respondent filed an application (A.P. No.922/2011) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying, inter alia, for an order of injunction restraining the appellant herein from selling iron ore to the third party. It may be mentioned here that subsequent to the decision of the appellant to terminate both the agreements, the appellant commenced the mining operation from January 2009. The learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, by his order dated 14.11.2011, declined to grant any ad interim order as sought by the respondent. By an order dated 14.3.2012, the said A.P. No.922/2011 was disposed of. 8. Thereafter, the respondent preferred another application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Trial Judge at the final hearing of the interlocutory application whichever is earlier. The findings and observation of the learned Trial Judge so also ours shall be regarded as being tentative, and it will not be binding effect either at the time of hearing of the arbitration agreement or at the time of final hearing of the interlocutory application pending before learned Trial Judge. The above observations of the Division Bench fully protect the interest of both parties..........." 10. A.P.O.T. No.245/2012 eventually came to be disposed of by an order dated 5.9.2012. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: "The Petitioner is not entitled to any interlocutory injunction in aid the claim for specific performance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of injunction to sell the iron ores excavated from the disputed mines to any third party without first offering to the appellant and is, further, directed to maintain accounts of the iron ores raised from the said mines since the commencement of the mining operation subject, however, to the result of the arbitral proceeding. We make it clear that the findings arrived at by the Hon'ble Single Judge and, also, by us are limited for the purpose of disposal of the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the learned arbitrator." 12. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Salman Khu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e selling it to a third party equally does not arise. 16. While ordering notice on18.7.2014 in the instant appeal, it was directed by the Court that the appellant "will maintain record/account of all the ore consumed" by the appellant "during the pendency" of this matter. 17. When the matter was taken up for hearing it was once again reiterated by the appellant that they have in fact been captively consuming the entire iron ore extracted from the mines in question. 18. Shri Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant made a submission at the bar that this Court may record an undertaking made by the appellant that the appellant will not sell any part of the iron ore extracted from the mines in question to any third party dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the appellant to sell the ore to the respondent, subject ofcourse to the determination of the cause finally in the arbitration proceedings. But it is not the case here. 21. The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submitted that in case an interim order is not granted, even if the respondent eventually succeeds in the arbitration proceedings and obtains an award for the specific performance of the agreement in question, the success would remain only on paper as huge amount of mineral excavated by the appellant would already have been sold by that time and there is no way of the respondent obtaining the said mineral. 22. No doubt, if the respondent eventually succeeds in the arbitration, it would be entitled to specific pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
