AO/306/2016 of M/s Ram Mohan Agarwal Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Parties
- M/s Ram Mohan Agarwal (PETITIONER)
- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (RESPONDENT)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALAppeal from Order No. 306/2016
M/s Ram Mohan Agarwal
……..Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ....Respondent
8th June, 2016
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant.
Appellant has come up before this Court challenging the order dated 19.4.2016, passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been rejected by the court below for the reason that no arbitrator has been appointed so far on the application of M/s Ram Mohan Agarwal submitted to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). Appellant has moved such application on 26.3.2016 and the appointment of arbitrator is awaited at the end of HPCL, but the HPCL has slept over the matter and did not appoint the arbitrator within one month, as envisaged under Section 11(4)(a) of the Act.
Learned Senior Counsel has urged that the application seeking appointment of arbitrator at the end of the court was also one of the stipulations in the terms of the arbitral agreement entered into between the parties. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that Section 9 of the Act contemplates that an application seeking the interim measures may be moved even prior to the commencement of arbitral proceedings.
Undoubtedly, since no arbitrator has been appointed so far and the application to appoint such arbitrator is pending decision at the end of both HPCL as well as the court, therefore, the interim measures can be granted by the court under Section 9 of the Act even before the appointment of arbitrator.
In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that issuance of notice to the respondent will not serve any useful purpose; rather it will further hamper the course of proceedings to press the application under Section 9 of the Act before the court below. So, I set side the impugned order dated 19.4.2016 at this very stage and direct the court below to adjudicate the said application on merits.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Prabodh
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)