LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-810

KIRLOSKAR CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEER LTD., REP BY ITS CO., SECRETARY, S. UMASHANKAR Vs. FAST TRACK ASSOCIATES

Decided On July 22, 2009
KIRLOSKAR CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEER LTD Appellant
V/S
FAST TRACK ASSOCIATES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Applications are filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the applicant for grant of injunction against the respondent from entering, utilising, removing or shifting the materials, machineries or in any manner disrupting the applicant from carrying out works on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bhagpat area pending arbitration and also for injunction not to threaten, abuse or intimidate or indulge in any physical harm to the applicant. The applicant-Company which is involved in the business of construction as contractor was awarded a contract by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for main line laying works for 132 KM 32" dia Cross Country R-LNG and combined station works for Dadri-Panipat R-LNG pipeline project as per the Work Order dated 13.2.2008. The applicant has given a part of the work to the respondent being the sub-contractor under the letter of intent dated 19.9.2008. By a subsequent letter of intent dated 18.11.2008, the work of submerged crossing and cased crossing work was entrusted to the respondent and thereafter, a Work Order was issued on 10.12.2008, as per which the work should be completed before 10.01.2009.

(2.) This Court, having been prima facie satisfied, by order dated 27.5.2009, granted an order of injunction.

(3.) In the counter affidavit while denying various allegations made in the Application, it is stated by the respondent that the work done registers are all with the applicant. It is stated that till the Arbitrator takes a decision, no injunction can be granted, by relying upon the judgment in Jammu & Kashmir State Forest Corporation v. Abdul Karim Wani and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1498 It is stated that as per the Work Order, the respondent has completed the work. It is stated that the materials and equipments belong to the respondent and the applicant attempted to usurp the same. It is also stated that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. itself in its letter dated 2.6.2009, directed the applicant to settle the amount due to the respondent and in spite of the same, the applicant failed to settle the amount, which itself shows dishonest intention of the applicant.