Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 633 - HC - Companies LawAppointment of Court receiver - Jurisdiction of Court - whether this application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable - Held that:- Even in the petition it was averred that this court had jurisdiction to entertain that petition. The petitioner was a party respondent to the said petition. It was prayed in the said petition that pending constitution of arbitral tribunal, arbitral proceedings adjudication and disposal of all disputes between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 (petitioner herein) by the arbitral tribunal by an award, Standard Chartered Bank should be restrained from releasing Rs.10 Crores. It is thus clear that both the parties have proceeded on the premise that not only Gujarat Court had jurisdiction but this court also has jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings arising between the parties - Therefore, court had jurisdiction to entertain try and dispose of this petition. There was no application filed by the petitioner under section 11 before Gujarat High Court in so far as the said “SSA” is concerned and thus question of applicability of section 42 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act in respect thereof would thus not apply in respect of the subject matter of the said “SSA” - prima facie company had received notices from various authorities for payment of labour cess, income tax, entry tax liability, service tax liability, ESIS for the period subsequent to the date of the execution of the said two agreements - The demand from all such authorities is substantial amount as brought on record in the arbitration petition - Even if some part of the claim made by the petitioner before the arbitral tribunal is for damages, other than claims made arising out of notice of demand/claim made by various parties, claim made by the petitioner arising out of such notice of demand for payment of statutory dues is also substantial. Having taken prima facie view that respondent nos. 1 to 4 would be liable to reimburse the petitioner in respect of the said claims, in my view the petitioner's claim is liable to be protected/secured at least in respect of the said demand made by the parties against the said company. This court in my view has ample power under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant interim measures even in respect of the properties which are not subject matter of the dispute in arbitration Claim made by the petitioner can be disproportionate to the consideration paid by the petitioner to respondent nos. 1 to 4 for acquisition of shares of the said company - prima facie, petitioners have good chance of succeeding in the arbitration proceedings and if the interim measures are not granted so as to secure the claim of the petitioner, even if the petitioner succeeds in arbitration proceedings, petitioner would not be able to recover any amount from respondents - Decided against Petitioner.
|