PATON CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. LORVEN PROJECTS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is presented under Sec. 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') against the order dated 21-12-2013 passed by the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing Arbitration Application No. 850 of 2013 presented under original Sec. 9 of the Act. By the impugned order, the appellant has been restrained from enforcing the terms of the memorandum of understanding dated 18-5-2011 (18-4-2011) till constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and initiation of proceedings by it.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the impugned order. Counsel for the respondents is absent. The sole contention urged by learned Counsel for the appellant is that, in view of Rule 9(4) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules'), the impugned order dated 21-12-2013 granting the interim measure under Sec. 9 of the Act stood vacated on the expiry of three months from the date of presentation of the application under Sec. 9 of the Act, as Arbitral proceedings were not initiated within the aforesaid three months. To examine the contention urged, Rule 9(4) of the Rules requires to be noticed; it reads as follows:

(3.) In this case, the application under Sec. 9 of the Act was presented on 13-11-201 It is stated by learned Counsel for the appellant that the arbitral proceedings in respect of the dispute were not initiated within three months from 13-11-2013, the date of presentation of the application. Hence, in our opinion, the order dated 21-12-2013 granting the interim measure, which is impugned in this appeal, stood automatically vacated on the expiry of three months from the date of presentation of the application. Therefore, no further order to set it aside is necessary.