- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sovereign Developers And Infrastructure Ltd. v. Paramount Vijetha Holding, A Partnership Firm
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition by Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. arises from a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Application (A.A) No. 728/2009. The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order dated 23-11-2009 by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, which rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking a stay of further proceedings in A.A No. 728/2009. The respondent, Paramount Vijetha Holding, filed A.A No. 728/2009 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with its construction activities on the scheduled property.
The petitioner’s application (I.A No. 4) for stay was based on the pendency of an earlier application (A.A No. 697/2009) also filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, seeking an injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with its construction work. Both parties have thus filed competing applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act relating to interim reliefs pending adjudication of a dispute concerning a building contract dated 23-6-2007.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to applications filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures.
- Whether the interlocutory order rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay of further proceedings under Section 10 CPC warrants interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the nature of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, observing that such proceedings for interim measures resemble interlocutory applications in a suit rather than suits themselves. Consequently, the Court held that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies to suits, is not applicable to applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The Court thus found no legal infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay under Section 10 CPC. This conclusion led the Court to deny interference under its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The petition was dismissed, affirming that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The direct effect is that interlocutory applications under Section 9 cannot be stayed by invoking Section 10 CPC. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing legal principles to the facts of this case.
1. This writ petition by Sovereign Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. arises out of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act’) in A.A No. 728/2009 and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 23-11-2009 (Annexure-H) made therein by the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge (C.C.H 11), Bangalore City, rejecting I.A No. 4 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of further proceedings in the aforesaid proceeding in A.A No. 728/2009. A.A No. 728/2009 is filed by the respondent-Paramount Vijetha Holding under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for grant of an order of injunction to restrain the petitioner herein from interfering with its putting up of construction on the schedule property.
2. The aforesaid I.A No. 4 was filed by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings in A.A No. 728/2009 on the ground that an application in A.A No. 697/2009 filed by it earlier under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for grant of an order of injunction to restrain the respondent herein from interfering with its construction work on the schedule property is pending consideration.
3. I have heard Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order at Annexure-H as well as the two applications at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘C’ in A.A Nos. 697 and 728/2009 filed by both the parties under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
4. It is stated that a dispute has arisen between the parties relating to a building contract dated 23-6-2007 and pending adjudication of the dispute, both the parties herein have filed applications in A.A Nos. 697 and 728/2009 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for the interim measures referred to above. The Civil Court, on a detailed consideration of the matter, has rejected I.A No. 4 on the ground that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
5. In my opinion, a proceeding for an interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is almost like an interlocutory application in a suit and hence such a proceeding cannot be construed as a suit within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction in this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Alert