NEPA LIMITED Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common order is being passed in this appeal and the connected appeal between the same parties registered as MA No. 37/98.

(2.) BOTH the appeals arise out of two orders passed on 3.5.1997 and 24.2.1997 by Additional District Judge, Burhanpur in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter) shortly referred to as 'the Act of 1996').

(3.) ACCORDING to the case of the respondent Manoj Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor'), contrary to clause 4.1 of the contract, the company sent a letter on 28.2.1997 to the contractor compelling him to lift straight -away lump sum quantity of 10,000 M. Ts. on payment of full price. It 'was also threatened that if the quantity was not lifted, it would be disposed of to third parties. The action of the company led to exchange of legal notices between the parties. Ultimately, on 17.4.97, the contractor approached the Civil Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking directions in the nature of injunctions and for preservation of the subject matter in dispute. Section 9. of the Act of 1996 empowers the Court to take interim measures including, if necessary, of issuing orders of injunction and appointment of receiver for preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are subject matter of the arbitration agreement. The provisions also empower the Court to secure any amount in dispute in the arbitration. Section 9 of the Act deserves to be quoted: - -