SYMPHONY SERVICES CORP. (INDIA) PVT. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. AMITAVA ROY Vs. MR. SUDIP BHATTACHARJEE S/O. LATE R.C. BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge CCH No. 11 Bangalore on an application made by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in AA No. 131/2007. The copy of the impugned order is at Annexure 'K'.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of this writ petition can be summarised as follows: The petitioner, a multi -national Company appointed the respondent as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in terms of the letter issued to him. Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioner and the respondent have separately entered into a Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement providing for non -disclosure of confidential information, which he would have acquired in the course of his employment with the petitioner -Company. On 11.04.2007, the petitioner terminated the services of respondent from the petitioner -Company. The reason for termination was that the petitioner -Company found that the respondent did not satisfy the High standard and was found wanting in discharging his responsibilities as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. It was also found that the respondent was discourteous to his colleagues and sub -ordinates. The respondent issued a legal notice on 23.04.2007 alleging that his termination was motivated, illegal, arbitrary and unilateral. Suffice it to say that the notice also contained a claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 2 crores for the alleged loss and the hardship suffered by him. A suitable reply was sent by the petitioners on 04.05.2007. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Trial Court, which was registered as AA No. 131/2007 for interim measures. In the said petition the respondent sought for a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores in the Trial Court and during the pendency of the said application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to pay the applicant i.e., the respondent regular remuneration including all benefits commencing from June 2007. The respondent also maintained an interim application under Section 9 of the Act claiming certain reliefs, which was in the nature of injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the property mentioned in the schedule. The said application was granted by the Trial Court without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, it appears received a communication on 26.07.2007 from the counsel appearing for the respondent in the Trial Court informing that the petitioner's main Bank Account in HSBC Bank of M.G. Road, Bangalore has been attached. The petitioner has called in question the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) MR . Bishwajith Bhattacharya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition itself. He submits that under Section 37(1)(A) of the Act, it is an appeal able order. Hence, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. He elaborates his contention by contending that under Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, an appeal would lie to a Division Bench. He further submits that the applicability of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not arise, inasmuch as Section 9 by itself is a remedial interim measure and the learned Trial Judge was justified in attaching the money to the tune of Rs. 2 crores lying with the HSBC Bank at Bangalore in the account of the petitioner. He further submits that the order impugned cannot be characterised as arbitrary, perverse and is not liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution assuming that the appeal provisions are not applicable.