MANMOHAN EXIMS PVT LIMITED Vs. SARJU INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. The Chamber Summons taken out by the petitioner is for the following reliefs: a) that the petitioner may be permitted to amend the pleadings in Arbitration case No. L/160/2001-2002 and award/decree passed therein against the Respondent namely, M/s. Sarju International Ltd. wrongly mentioned as M/s. Sarju International. b) for costs; c) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(2.) The latter chamber summons is taken out by M/s. Sarju International limited-third party for the following reliefs: (a) That the Warrant of Attachment, dated 1.10. 2003 issued in the above execution Application for attaching Bank Account No. 443 standing in the name of the Applicants with Canara Bank, Overseas Branch, mumbai. (b) That the Warrant of Attachment dated 1.10. 2003 seeking to attach the property of the Applicants being Sarju House, 90, MIDC, Andheri (East) , mumbai-400 093 be set aside. (c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Chamber Summons, the Plaintiffs be restrained from taking any further steps in pursuance of the said Warrants of Attachment referred to in prayers (a) and (b) above being Exhibit "3" and "7" to the Affidavit in Support of the present Chamber Summons both dated 1.10. 2003. (d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the chamber summons, the Applicants be permitted to operate the Bank Account No. 443 with canara Bank, Overseas Branch, Mumbai on such terms and conditions as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (e) Ad interim relief in terms of prayers (a) to (d) , be granted. (f) For costs. (g) For further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

(3.) Both the chamber summonses are heard and disposed of together by this order. At one stage of the hearing, my predecessor felt that the question involved in the present chamber summons will require recording of evidence. However, subsequently when the matter came up before me on August 29, 2005, Counsel appearing for the parties fairly accepted that the questions raised in Chamber Summons No. 1030/2004 can be decided without recording of evidence and if the same fails, the latter chamber summons taken out by m/s. Sarju International Limited will automatically succeed. On the other hand, if the other chamber summons taken out by the petitioner was to be allowed, only then the question of recording of evidence to consider the claim of M/s. Sarju International Limited in Chamber Summons No. 1489/2003 will become necessary.