Case Note & Summary
The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.78 of 2005. The Single Judge had granted interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in a dispute between Shree Ram Mills Limited (appellant/owner) and Kalpataru Construction Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (first respondent/developer) concerning a property development agreement. The agreement, embodied in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28 June 2004 and an Addendum dated 10 December 2004, related to lands at Lower Parel, Mumbai admeasuring approximately 20,955 sq. mtrs. The total consideration was Rs.105.30 crores, of which Rs.30 crores had been paid by the developer. Disputes arose as the owner allegedly demanded additional sums and failed to complete the transaction, while the developer claimed readiness and willingness to perform. The Single Judge's order restrained the appellant and the second respondent from alienating the property and, conditional upon the developer depositing Rs.13.30 crores and furnishing a bank guarantee within eight weeks, appointed a receiver with the developer as agent to develop the property. The appeal was filed by the owner contending against these interim measures. The judgment sets out the factual background, including the correspondence, meetings, and the sequence of events starting from the MOU, payments made, and the eventual breakdown leading to arbitration. The excerpt ends before the recording of arguments, the court's analysis, and the final decision on the appeal. The court had reserved the judgment on 6 October 2005 and pronounced it on 27 October 2005, but the operative part is not contained in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Measures - Section 9, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Nature of Reliefs - Single Judge granted injunction against alienation of property, and upon deposit of Rs.13.30 crores and bank guarantee, appointment of receiver with developer as agent to develop the property, in a dispute arising from an MOU for property development where the developer had paid Rs.30 crores and claimed readiness to perform. The order was challenged in appeal under Section 37 (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
APPEAL NO.645 OF 2005
