Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Taz Naval Nariman and Rukhsshana Meher Anklesaria, filed an Arbitration Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures in connection with a partnership dispute. The partnership deed between the parties contained an arbitration clause. The petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, or creating third-party rights over the properties of the firm, including a property listed at Exhibit B. On 13 June 2011, the court recorded statements from Respondent No. 7 and other parties that they would not take such actions. The court accepted these statements and directed that none of the parties shall dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession, or create any third-party rights or interests in the firm's properties. The judgment was reserved on 20 March 2012 and pronounced on 9 April 2012. The court's order effectively maintained the status quo pending arbitration.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Partnership Dispute - Petitioners sought interim relief to restrain respondents from disposing of or encumbering partnership properties - Court recorded statements of parties and directed status quo - Held that interim protection is necessary to preserve the subject matter of arbitration (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to restrain the respondents from alienating or encumbering partnership properties pending arbitration.
Final Decision
The court recorded the statements of the parties and directed that none of the parties shall dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of, or create any third party rights or interests in respect of the properties of the firm, including the property mentioned at serial No.8 at Exhibit 'B'. The order was made pending arbitration.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- interim measures
- partnership deed
- arbitration clause
- status quo
- alienation of property
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 40
Arbitration Petition No. 494 of 2011
Mr. Birendra Saraf a/w Ms. Simeen Shaikh i/by M/s. S.K. Srivastava & Co. for the Petitioners, Mr. Mahendra Ghelani a/w Mr. Waquar Ahmed i/by M/s. Law Charter for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5, Mr. Ajit A. Kocharekar for Respondent No. 2A, Mr. Ganesh S. Vidya for Respondent No.3, Mr. R.M. Jaykar i/by M/s. Jaykar & Co. for Respondent No.4, Mr. Chetan Kapadia a/w Mr. Tejas Shah i/by M/s. M & M Legal Ventures for Respondent No. 7, Mr. A.H. Khatri i/by M/s. Khatri Legal Venture for Respondent No.6
Taz Naval Nariman and Rukhsshana Meher Anklesaria
Mrs. Roshan Dinshaw Nariman, Mr. Rusi Nariman (since deceased) through Mrs. Sillo Rusi Nariman, Ms. Jeroo Nariman, Mrs. Shernaz K. Irani, Mrs. Meher K. Patel, Mrs. Binifer Sunil Kaushal, Urvaksh Naval Nariman alias Urvaksh Naval Hoyvoy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures in a partnership dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought interim relief to restrain respondents from disposing of, alienating, encumbering, or creating third-party rights over partnership properties pending arbitration.
Filing Reason
Dispute arose between partners of a firm, and petitioners feared that respondents might alienate or encumber partnership properties, affecting the subject matter of arbitration.
Previous Decisions
On 13 June 2011, the court recorded statements from Respondent No. 7 and other parties that they would not dispose of, alienate, encumber, or create third-party rights over the firm's properties.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to restrain the respondents from alienating or encumbering partnership properties pending arbitration.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that there was an arbitration clause in the partnership deed and that interim protection was necessary to preserve the partnership properties.
Respondents gave statements that they would not dispose of, alienate, encumber, or create third-party rights over the firm's properties.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court has the power to grant interim measures to preserve the subject matter of arbitration. Where parties have given statements not to alienate property, the court can record and enforce such statements to maintain status quo.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners have invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for various interim measures/reliefs in view of the existing arbitration clause in the partnership deed between the parties.
This Court, on 13 June 2011, has recorded the statement of Respondent No.7 that he will not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in respect of the properties of the firm including the property mentioned at serial No.8 at Exhibit 'B'.
Procedural History
The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 13 June 2011, the court recorded statements from parties. Judgment was reserved on 20 March 2012 and pronounced on 9 April 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
