BINA MODI Vs. LALIT MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both suits seek the reliefs of,

(2.) The suits, being in the nature of anti-arbitration injunction suits and, (A) a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kvaerner Cementation India Limited Vs. Bajranglal Agarwal (2012) 5 SCC 214, followed by the undersigned in several judgments, having taken a view that "bearing in mind the very object with which the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 has been enacted and the provisions thereof contained in Section 16 conferring the power on the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, we have no doubt in our mind that the civil court cannot have jurisdiction to go into that question"; (B) the suits being accompanied with applications for interim relief seeking to restrain the defendant No.1 from instituting or continuing with ICC arbitration; and, (C) the counsel for the defendant No.1 having appeared on caveat to oppose the very admission of the suits, the senior counsels for the plaintiff/s and the senior counsels for the defendant No.1 were heard from 1030 hours to 1320 hours and again from 1600 hours to 1640 hours, orders on admission of suits were reserved on 27th February, 2020, when the suits had come up first before this Court.

(3.) The facts, insofar as necessary on the aspect of maintainability of the suits, may be recorded as under: