Ramo Industries Pte. Ltd. Vs.punj Lloyd Ltd. - Court Judgment

$~39 & 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:

30. 11.2018 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 50/2018 & I.A. No.13454/2018 RAMO INDUSTRIES PTE. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ritin Rai with Mr. Rohan Dhariwal, Advs. versus PUNJ LLOYD LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Dayan Krishanan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Manish, Advs. + ARB. A. (COMM.) 51/2018 & I.A. No.13456/2018 1. RAMO INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ritin Rai with Mr. Rohan Dhariwal, Advs. versus PUNJ LLOYD LTD. Dayan Krishanan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Jain and Mr. Manish, Advs. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

(ORAL) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. Mr. Dayan Krishanan, learned Senior Counsel, who, appears for the respondent, concedes that the impugned order dated 28.7.2018 is, in effect, ARB. A. (COMM.) 50/2018 & 51/2018 Pg. 1 of 3 an order injuncting the respondent from enforcing its claim against a non- party, that is, Punj Lloyd Malaysia. 2.1 It is also not disputed before me by Mr. Krishanan that Punj Lloyd Malaysia has taken recourse to a statutory remedy under Section 15 of a Malaysian statute, that is, the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 (CIPAA) and those proceedings are pending before the Malaysian High Court. 2.3 Furthermore, what is also not in dispute is that the adjudicatory order dated 2.7.2018 concerns Punj Lloyd Malaysia and not the respondent before me, that is, Punj Lloyd Ltd.

3. In effect, the adjudicator acting under CIPAA has partially allowed the respondent’s claim vis.-a.-vis. Punj Lloyd Malaysia, which, as indicated above, has been assailed before the High Court of Malaysia.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid, Mr. Krishanan says that he cannot but argue that this order needs to be dissolved and that instead, liberty ought to be given to move an appropriate application for securing the interest of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (the Indian entity).

5. Having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Krishanan, the appeals are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The order dated 28.7.2018 will stand dissolved. The injunction against the appellants shall stand vacated. (ii) The respondent before me, i.e., Punj Lloyd Ltd., shall have liberty to move an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Arbitrator at the earliest for grant of appropriate security by the appellants before me. (iii) In case such an application is moved, the appellants would have ARB. A. (COMM.) 50/2018 & 51/2018 Pg. 2 of 3 leave and liberty to defend the same on all possible grounds, as may be available to them in law. (iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to deal with the application, if any, filed by Punj Lloyd Ltd., that is, the respondent herein at the earliest.

6. As would be evident, I have not, quite clearly, at the say so of the counsel for the respondent, expressed any view on merits. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J NOVEMBER30 2018/pmc ARB. A. (COMM.) 50/2018 & 51/2018 Pg. 3 of 3