TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Enforceable arbitration award upheld; plaintiff denied injunction but protected from dispossession</h1> <h3>S.S. Fasteners Versus Satya Paul Verma</h3> S.S. Fasteners Versus Satya Paul Verma - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of ad interim injunction granted by the trial court and subsequently set aside by the District Judge.2. Executability of the arbitration award dated 28-7-1997.3. Entitlement to ad interim injunction for the remaining portion of the industrial shed not covered by the license deed and arbitration award.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Ad Interim Injunction:- The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with its possession of the tenanted premises and from dispossessing it except in due course of law. The trial court confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 4-3-1997 until the disposal of the suit.- The defendant appealed, and the District Judge set aside the trial court's order, dismissing the ad interim injunction application of the plaintiff on 10-4-1999.- The High Court, upon review, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an ad interim injunction for the portion of the industrial shed that was the subject of the arbitration award, as the award had become final and executable. However, for the remaining portion of the industrial shed, the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction, preventing dispossession except in due course of law.2. Executability of the Arbitration Award:- The arbitrator issued an ex parte award on 28-7-1997, directing the licensee to vacate the premises and pay compensation for unauthorized use after the revocation of the license.- The licensee did not challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, within the specified period, making the award final and enforceable under Section 36 of the Act.- The executing court ordered the issuance of warrants of possession and attachment for the recovery of the awarded amount. The High Court upheld this order, stating that the award, having assumed the status of a civil court decree, was executable. The court emphasized that objections to the arbitrator's jurisdiction should have been raised during the arbitration proceedings.3. Entitlement to Ad Interim Injunction for Remaining Portion of the Industrial Shed:- The plaintiff claimed possession of the entire industrial shed, while the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was only a licensee for a portion of the shed.- The High Court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction for the remaining portion of the industrial shed, not covered by the license deed and arbitration award. The court noted that the plaintiff's possession of this portion was established, and the circumstances under which the plaintiff came into possession needed to be determined.- The court held that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed from this portion except in due course of law, and the defendant was restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's possession until the suit's disposal.Conclusion:- Civil Revision No. 5618 of 1999 was dismissed, affirming the executability of the arbitration award.- Civil Revision No. 2534 of 1999 was partly dismissed and partly allowed. The plaintiff was denied an ad interim injunction for the portion covered by the arbitration award but granted protection from dispossession for the remaining portion of the industrial shed during the suit's pendency.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
