Skip to content


Globe Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Printpak Machinery Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatter No. Nil of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Cal52
ActsArbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 20, 31(4) and 41
AppellantGlobe Paper Mills Ltd.
RespondentPrintpak Machinery Ltd.
Respondent AdvocateKhanna, Adv.
Cases Referred(Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd.) and
Excerpt:
- .....and filed a section 20 petition. thereafter the respondent printpak machinery ltd. went to the delhi high court and filed a section 20 petition. in order of time, the calcutta high court petition was earlier. in that view of the matter i held that the calcutta high court has been fixed with exclusive jurisdiction under section 31(4) of the arbitration act, and the delhi high court has no jurisdiction in the matter. it appears that in the meantime by an order of the delhi high court a reference has been started. the petitioner before me has taken out a section 41 application and has obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting with the arbitration started pursuant to the order of the delhi high court.3. mr. khanna appearing on behalf of the respondent.....
Judgment:

Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.

1. This is an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act.

2. There was an agreement between the parties and the agreement contained an arbitration clause. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein came to the Calcutta High Court and filed a Section 20 petition. Thereafter the respondent Printpak Machinery Ltd. went to the Delhi High Court and filed a Section 20 petition. In order of time, the Calcutta High Court petition was earlier. In that view of the matter I held that the Calcutta High Court has been fixed with exclusive jurisdiction under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, and the Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that in the meantime by an order of the Delhi High Court a reference has been started. The petitioner before me has taken out a Section 41 application and has obtained an interim injunction restraining the respondent from prosecuting with the arbitration started pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court.

3. Mr. Khanna appearing on behalf of the respondent prayed for vacating the order of interim injunction. He cited : [1983]3SCR962 (Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd.) and strongly relying on this case submitted that under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act the Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction against a person preventing or restraining him from prosecuting or instituting a proceeding in a Court of coordinate jurisdiction or in a superior Court.

4. It appears that in that case the Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. wanted to present a winding-up petition against the Bank concerned, and the Bank wanted to restrain cotton corporation by obtaining an order of interim injunction from presenting that winding-up petition. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and on the facts and circumstances of that case the Supreme Court held as I have stated above. But the facts of that case were absolutely different from the facts of the case before me. In the present case I have already held that the Section 20 proceeding in the Delhi High Court was not maintainable due to the fact that a similar application was made in this Court earlier and as such the order for reference passed by the Delhi High Court was without jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the reference started by the Delhi High Court being jurisdiction is invalid., In that view of the matter I restrained the respondent from proceeding with the said arbitration to prevent an abuse of the process of law resulting in infructuous expenditure by both the parties. No order of interim injunction has been issued restraining the respondent herein from prosecuting any matter pending before the Delhi High Court or from instituting any matter in the Delhi High Court. The order of injunction is against prosecuting the reference. Therefore, the Supreme Court case cited by Mr. Khanna has no application on the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. in that view of the matter, the interim order passed on 23rd February, 1984 is made absolute. Each party to pay and bear its own cost.

6. Mr. Khanna prays for stay of this order which is refused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //