Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Excel Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cogent Ventures India Ltd. and ors.

Excel Casting Pvt. Ltd. vs Cogent Ventures India Ltd. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Apr 02, 2009
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/712306

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
O.M.P. No. 355 of 2006
Subject
Arbitration;Property
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi till the arbitral award was made, and in case the award being in favour of the petitioner, till it was fully satisfied. However, the respondents failed to make payment of Rs.

Key legal issue
Arbitration;Property
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Excel Casting Pvt. Ltd.

Advocate Vikas Goel, Adv

Respondent

Cogent Ventures India Ltd. and ors.

Advocate S.K. Pandey, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
(2010)157PLR5

Excerpt

- - 810/2, chattarpur extension, new delhi till the arbitral award was made, and in case the award being in favour of the petitioner, till it was fully satisfied. however, the respondents failed to make payment of rs......of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties. the petitioner filed the present application/petition for interim protection.3. notice of this application was issued to the respondents. respondents put appearance however, no reply was filed. thereafter, parties sought time for negotiating a settlement and an interim order was passed directing respondents to maintain status-quo. in the meantime, this application/petition was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. it was again restored on an application by the petitioner and an order was made for issuance of notice to the respondents, interim order was also restored. against, the petitioner did not take steps for service of the respondents and the interim order was vacated and the matter came up for final hearing.4. it is seen that the respondents despite several opportunities have not filed reply to the application/petition. there is no doubt that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the accounts and the accounts of the petitioner are yet to be settled in terms of the agreement between the parties. there is an arbitration clause according to which the dispute between the parties has to be referred to the arbitration. in order to secure the petitioner's amount, i consider that it would be necessary that respondents be restrained from selling or disposing of the property in question till the dispute of the parties is adjudicated by the arbitrator. i, therefore, allow this application/petition and it is directed that the respondents shall not sell property no. 810/2, chattarpur extension, new delhi till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated by the arbitrator and award is passed.

Full Judgment

Shiv Narain Dhingra, J.

1. This application/petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with a prayer that the respondents be restrained from disposing, selling or creating third party interest in property No. 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi till the arbitral award was made, and in case the award being in favour of the petitioner, till it was fully satisfied.

2. The petitioner had entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the respondents and under this Tripartite Agreement the petitioner was to renovate/construct/reconstruct building at the above premises and to do interiors and other maintenance. It is submitted that the petitioner successfully completed its part of the obligation as per the agreement and renovated the structure at the ground floor including interiors, flooring, POP, glass-work etc. in accordance with directions and consent of the respondents. However, the respondents failed to make payment of Rs. 23.80 lac which was the amount due from the respondents in terms of the agreement and work done. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the agreement between the parties. The petitioner filed the present application/petition for interim protection.

3. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. Respondents put appearance however, no reply was filed. Thereafter, parties sought time for negotiating a settlement and an interim order was passed directing respondents to maintain status-quo. In the meantime, this application/petition was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. It was again restored on an application by the petitioner and an order was made for issuance of notice to the respondents, interim order was also restored. Against, the petitioner did not take steps for service of the respondents and the interim order was vacated and the matter came up for final hearing.

4. It is seen that the respondents despite several opportunities have not filed reply to the application/petition. There is no doubt that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the accounts and the accounts of the petitioner are yet to be settled in terms of the agreement between the parties. There is an arbitration clause according to which the dispute between the parties has to be referred to the arbitration. In order to secure the petitioner's amount, I consider that it would be necessary that respondents be restrained from selling or disposing of the property in question till the dispute of the parties is adjudicated by the Arbitrator. I, therefore, allow this application/petition and it is directed that the respondents shall not sell property No. 810/2, Chattarpur Extension, New Delhi till the dispute between the parties is adjudicated by the Arbitrator and award is passed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial