Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Middle Income Group Cooperative Society Limited, filed an appeal against an ad-interim order dated 29th March 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The order granted an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the arbitration petition filed by respondent No.1, L & T Bombay Developers Private Limited, and posted the petition for final hearing on 14th June 2010. The appellant contended that the order prevented redevelopment of its dilapidated property, causing serious harm and injury. The appellant argued that all contractual obligations had ended and it should be free to redevelop its own property. The respondents opposed the appeal, submitting that the order was ad-interim and did not prejudice the appellant, who could seek an early hearing. The Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the order was ad-interim and the appellant had not demonstrated any irreparable harm. The Court observed that the balance of convenience was in favor of maintaining the status quo until the final hearing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on the next date fixed for hearing. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Relief - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ad-interim Injunction - The appellant challenged an ad-interim order restraining redevelopment of its property. The Court held that the order was ad-interim and did not cause irreparable harm as the appellant could seek early hearing. The appeal was dismissed as the balance of convenience was in favor of maintaining status quo. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ad-interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge should be vacated or modified pending final hearing of the arbitration petition.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The ad-interim order of the learned Single Judge is maintained. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on the next date fixed for hearing. No opinion on merits expressed.
Law Points
- Ad-interim injunction
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- arbitration petition
- Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 41
APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 624 OF 2010
ANIL R. DAVE, C.J., S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Chetan Kapadia, Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr.Lalit Jain i/b. L.J. Law for the Appellant. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Pooja Mehta, Mr. P.K. Shroff, Mr. D.V. Deokar, Ms.Pinakin Modi, Ms.Jayalakshi, Mr. Vismay P. Shroff, Mr.Subodh Joshi and Mr. Sanjay B. Kotak i/b M/s Parimal K Shroff & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Farhan Dubash i/b Solomon & Co. for Respondent No.3.
Middle Income Group Cooperative Society Limited
L & T Bombay Developers Private Limited, Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Limited, L & T Urban Infrastructure Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against ad-interim order granting injunction in an arbitration petition.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought vacation of ad-interim injunction to allow redevelopment of its property.
Filing Reason
The appellant was prevented from redeveloping its property due to the ad-interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge granted ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the arbitration petition and posted the petition for final hearing on 14th June 2010.
Issues
Whether the ad-interim injunction should be vacated or modified pending final hearing.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The order prevents redevelopment of dilapidated property, causing serious harm and injury; all contractual obligations have ended.
Respondent: The order is ad-interim and does not prejudice the appellant; appellant can seek early hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
An ad-interim order that does not cause irreparable harm and where balance of convenience favors maintaining status quo should not be interfered with pending final hearing.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the adinterim order dated 29th March, 2010 of the learned Single Judge where under an adinterim injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition has been granted and the petition is posted for final hearing on 14th June, 2010.
In our opinion, the order is adinterim and the appellant has not been able to demonstrate any irreparable harm or injury. The balance of convenience is in favour of maintaining the status quo till the final hearing.
Procedural History
The learned Single Judge granted an ad-interim injunction on 29th March 2010 in Arbitration Petition No. 624 of 2010. The appellant filed Appeal No. 192 of 2010 against that order. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 27th April 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
