LAWS(GAU)-2013-3-10

RAKESH SIROHIA Vs. HANUMAN TEA COMPANY LTD.

Decided On March 05, 2013
RAKESH SIROHIA Appellant
V/S
HANUMAN TEA COMPANY LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Arbitration Act', in short), read with Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (briefly, 'CPC') is directed against the Order dated 19.06.2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 26 of 2012. By this impugned order, the learned District has declined to grant interim protection for the suit property under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Hence, this appeal is at the instance of the petitioner. Heard Sri S. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P. Sundi, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant in the Court of the learned District Judge. Also gone through the impugned order and other documents annexed with the memo of appeal. No counter has been filed by the respondent.

(2.) The gist of the case is that the petitioner has purchased a tea garden, namely. Sonajuli Tea Estate, owned by the respondent Company. The terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of the tea garden have been set-out in the Agreement dated 13th of October 2009. Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner has already made part payment of the total consideration and has also made substantial investment in the development and upgradation of the Tea Estate. Since the respondent had outstanding dues to the Bank of Baroda, one of the conditions to purchase the tea garden was that the respondent Company shall enter into "one time settlement" with the Bank and thereafter, the final sale deed shall be executed. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to perform their obligations giving rise to filing of an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

(3.) Initially, both the parties were directed by the learned District Judge to maintain status quo of the property vide order dated 23.2.2012. However, this interim order has been vacated through the impugned order dated 19.6.2012.