w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Padma Mahadev & Others v/s M/s. Sierra Constructions Private Limited, Represented by its Director Kumari Bharathi


Company & Directors' Information:- C & C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = L45201DL1996PLC080401

Company & Directors' Information:- U G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC074921

Company & Directors' Information:- A G R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC028180

Company & Directors' Information:- N J R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC065101

Company & Directors' Information:- C P R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057937

Company & Directors' Information:- S T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC127181

Company & Directors' Information:- J P G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC124763

Company & Directors' Information:- B O CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2000PTC103440

Company & Directors' Information:- V R G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208TN2013PTC090378

Company & Directors' Information:- G N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200KA2004PTC034839

Company & Directors' Information:- E C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1998PTC092928

Company & Directors' Information:- I P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC141372

Company & Directors' Information:- A R R S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202TZ2008PTC014926

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45200DL1972PLC006224

Company & Directors' Information:- D N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2011PTC074563

Company & Directors' Information:- D A P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1997PTC086056

Company & Directors' Information:- M R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1987PTC041958

Company & Directors' Information:- SIERRA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA1992PTC013124

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC052569

Company & Directors' Information:- J N C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC093071

Company & Directors' Information:- P R D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC132422

Company & Directors' Information:- R A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL1999PTC101132

Company & Directors' Information:- S V P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15100KA2013PTC072347

Company & Directors' Information:- V G V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2003PTC010825

Company & Directors' Information:- C K CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309DL2021PTC382589

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHADEV CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65921DL1989PLC034824

Company & Directors' Information:- C L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC074067

Company & Directors' Information:- R M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC136640

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2009PTC039089

Company & Directors' Information:- H M R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209WB1944PTC011901

Company & Directors' Information:- H A M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140214

Company & Directors' Information:- B M R C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC126958

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC154123

Company & Directors' Information:- N B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC153179

Company & Directors' Information:- V P V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TZ2002PTC010021

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202WB1990PTC048623

Company & Directors' Information:- D B S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201BR1990PTC003954

Company & Directors' Information:- P R P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1995PTC032833

Company & Directors' Information:- PADMA (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = L13203WB1982PLC035598

Company & Directors' Information:- N S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1997PLC088867

Company & Directors' Information:- B B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1988PLC045084

Company & Directors' Information:- S V P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203KA2013PTC072347

Company & Directors' Information:- S. C. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400AS2012PTC010876

Company & Directors' Information:- K & R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2011PTC010822

Company & Directors' Information:- M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC148776

Company & Directors' Information:- V Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2014PTC062964

Company & Directors' Information:- G V B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC028935

Company & Directors' Information:- BHARATHI CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC065195

Company & Directors' Information:- P K D CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB1980PTC032820

Company & Directors' Information:- H K P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202OR2001PTC006458

Company & Directors' Information:- G S S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TZ1992PTC003665

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130723

Company & Directors' Information:- A G P CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AN2006PTC000078

Company & Directors' Information:- S I A CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1993PTC061189

Company & Directors' Information:- P H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125388

Company & Directors' Information:- G G CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1987PTC028772

Company & Directors' Information:- N S V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70101WB1997PTC084753

Company & Directors' Information:- S M C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2000PTC123619

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PN2020PTC191603

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24248UP1984PTC006613

Company & Directors' Information:- H V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2008PTC183930

Company & Directors' Information:- K M S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26931TG1983PTC004119

Company & Directors' Information:- M S R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TG2000PTC035352

Company & Directors' Information:- K P C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2012PTC233771

Company & Directors' Information:- A G M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202KL2002PTC015340

Company & Directors' Information:- D N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203AS1983PTC002024

Company & Directors' Information:- P S V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2009PTC064768

Company & Directors' Information:- K B C CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2011PLC032890

Company & Directors' Information:- T T S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45403KL2020PTC064299

Company & Directors' Information:- V B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC027406

Company & Directors' Information:- M R Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC172953

Company & Directors' Information:- V S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA1980PTC003939

Company & Directors' Information:- J B CONSTRUCTIONS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1981PLC034263

Company & Directors' Information:- S D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC012083

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC281859

Company & Directors' Information:- V N CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2015PTC083425

Company & Directors' Information:- R D S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202PN2001PTC016041

Company & Directors' Information:- T R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC161605

Company & Directors' Information:- J B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130303

Company & Directors' Information:- A I B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309KA2021PTC146378

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND V CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65992TG1987PTC007890

Company & Directors' Information:- M R G CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MP1994PTC008620

Company & Directors' Information:- P D R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72100KA1986PTC007383

Company & Directors' Information:- A P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1979PTC032397

Company & Directors' Information:- J N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1997PTC088802

Company & Directors' Information:- P. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MP1982PTC002078

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1992PTC051503

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1999PTC031067

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTIONS CO OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UP1946PTC001471

Company & Directors' Information:- K S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UP1982PTC005640

Company & Directors' Information:- J. P. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45202CT2007PTC020304

Company & Directors' Information:- I M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122889

Company & Directors' Information:- J V R INDIA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC129898

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101KA1997PTC023146

Company & Directors' Information:- L S CONSTRUCTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA2012PTC063895

Company & Directors' Information:- K MAHADEV AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U20220MH1948PTC006782

Company & Directors' Information:- B G CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1989PTC046859

Company & Directors' Information:- J & J CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U70109WB1991PTC052664

Company & Directors' Information:- M C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1985PTC039150

Company & Directors' Information:- N C CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042382

Company & Directors' Information:- M R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201CH1995PTC017071

Company & Directors' Information:- B A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB2002PTC024960

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND W CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17291DL2007PTC170930

Company & Directors' Information:- A S D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC125030

Company & Directors' Information:- P K CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP1987PTC008025

Company & Directors' Information:- H H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1980PTC022610

Company & Directors' Information:- S D C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2011PTC074468

Company & Directors' Information:- C J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1996PTC082457

Company & Directors' Information:- R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002234

Company & Directors' Information:- N D F C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2004PTC144493

Company & Directors' Information:- J H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1998PTC115057

Company & Directors' Information:- S. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101MH2003PTC139538

Company & Directors' Information:- L D F CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2009PTC037275

Company & Directors' Information:- K P N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2014PTC092096

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC071441

Company & Directors' Information:- R . C . S . CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911UP1999PTC024964

Company & Directors' Information:- U R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC120032

Company & Directors' Information:- H M K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2012PTC184485

Company & Directors' Information:- O P B K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047760

Company & Directors' Information:- G A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109333

Company & Directors' Information:- A J N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142336

Company & Directors' Information:- J. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR2011PTC017019

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45500AP2016PTC104385

Company & Directors' Information:- U E CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA2002PTC030635

Company & Directors' Information:- U D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1990PTC002649

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1989PTC017300

Company & Directors' Information:- R S S CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH1990PTC003927

Company & Directors' Information:- PADMA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1952PLC020658

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG1992PTC015113

Company & Directors' Information:- I. A. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG1998PTC029569

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHADEV CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201DL1990PTC040083

Company & Directors' Information:- B J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1972PTC015731

Company & Directors' Information:- S A K CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2007PTC055386

Company & Directors' Information:- L & I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UR2006PTC032334

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1990PTC011951

Company & Directors' Information:- P B R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AP1998PTC028800

Company & Directors' Information:- I R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC084160

Company & Directors' Information:- M A M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2003PTC010667

Company & Directors' Information:- V. M. R. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202AP1996PTC023724

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1993PTC013953

Company & Directors' Information:- A. W. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MP2009PTC022110

Company & Directors' Information:- S B R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70100MH1982PTC027337

Company & Directors' Information:- G V K CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1985PTC011867

Company & Directors' Information:- G T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101UP1980PTC004982

Company & Directors' Information:- I. N. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003931

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. B. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039632

Company & Directors' Information:- A J PADMA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101TN2003PTC051011

Company & Directors' Information:- N. M. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067227

Company & Directors' Information:- B N CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR1981PTC001015

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KL1980PTC003192

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400PB2009PTC032554

Company & Directors' Information:- M T M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ2005PTC011626

Company & Directors' Information:- I S K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202TN2006PTC059103

Company & Directors' Information:- K R V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC075836

Company & Directors' Information:- R S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2010PTC078562

Company & Directors' Information:- D & Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2009PTC134889

Company & Directors' Information:- K & Y CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2014PTC150194

Company & Directors' Information:- L. K. M. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2006PTC164835

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC218327

Company & Directors' Information:- J J K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2013PTC244977

Company & Directors' Information:- M K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2000PTC127425

Company & Directors' Information:- S R R CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202MH1982PTC027359

Company & Directors' Information:- 4 F CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2012PTC081501

Company & Directors' Information:- N N C CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45400TG2015PTC099840

Company & Directors' Information:- J S J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TN2016PTC103860

Company & Directors' Information:- Q AND Q CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043373

Company & Directors' Information:- V M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2013PTC087032

Company & Directors' Information:- S I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH2014PTC035188

Company & Directors' Information:- R S A CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2009PTC193200

Company & Directors' Information:- B B R L CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC217588

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2012PTC243738

Company & Directors' Information:- A M T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC268935

Company & Directors' Information:- K. D. CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2009PTC190268

Company & Directors' Information:- G T B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2009PTC193204

Company & Directors' Information:- G N D CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2009PTC193472

Company & Directors' Information:- R P T CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2007PTC055960

Company & Directors' Information:- M N R CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2014PTC094893

Company & Directors' Information:- C B N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2010PTC040454

Company & Directors' Information:- Y & M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2011PTC044664

Company & Directors' Information:- M P K CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201KA2001PTC029100

Company & Directors' Information:- H K G N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA2003PTC032055

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201KL1995PTC008623

Company & Directors' Information:- R B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102AP1989PTC010527

Company & Directors' Information:- A P N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201HP1995PTC017344

Company & Directors' Information:- M T J CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA1991PTC011684

Company & Directors' Information:- V N V CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1992PTC050037

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH2000PTC129703

Company & Directors' Information:- H B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100MH1974PTC017866

Company & Directors' Information:- D B CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2007PTC053917

Company & Directors' Information:- T V L S CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC057723

Company & Directors' Information:- N N CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG2006PTC050240

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CT1983PTC002128

Company & Directors' Information:- A R H CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC155870

Company & Directors' Information:- E M CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2008PTC185365

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201RJ1983PTC002720

    Comap No. 2 of 2021

    Decided On, 22 March 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ABHAY S. OKA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

    For the Appellants: Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate, S. Chandrashekar, Advocate. For the Respondent: M.V. Sundara Raman, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Commercial Appeal (COMAP) is filed under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to (i) call for the records in Com.A.A.No.45/2020, on the file of LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, (CCH-84) and (ii) Set aside the impugned order dated 19/11/2020 passed by the LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, (CCH-84) in Com.A.A.No. 45/2020 passed on I.A.No.1 (Annexure-A) and to dismiss the Com.A.A.No.45/2020 pending on the file of the LXXXIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru (CCH-84 and etc.)Abhay S. Oka, CJ.1. The appellants who are the owners of the schedule property are the respondents before the learned Judge of the Commercial Court, Bengaluru Urban District in Com.A.A. No.45/2020. The impugned order dated 19th November 2020 has been passed on an application made by the respondent- developer before the Commercial Court under Rules 1 and 2, Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the said Code"). The application was made in an application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act').FACTS OF THE CASE:2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the Bar, a brief reference to the facts will be necessary. The appellants are the owners of the schedule property and the respondent is the developer. The property which is the subject matter of the application filed by the respondent-developer under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, is the land bearing No.19/1, new No.165 and 165/1, R.V. Road, Visweswarapuram, Bengaluru- 560004. The area of the said property (for short, 'the schedule property') is 9533 square feet (out of 10725 square feet). On 14th December, 2007, a Joint Development Agreement (for short, 'the JDA') was entered into by and between the appellants and the respondent. As per the terms of the said JDA, the respondent had agreed to construct a commercial complex or a Hotel complex structure on the schedule property. According to the case of the respondent, it has spent a sum of Rs.16,00,00,000/- (rupees sixteen crores) on the construction of a building on the schedule property. According to the case of the respondent, a commercial complex was required to be constructed by it within a period of thirty six months as stipulated in the JDA. As per the JDA, time of eighteen months was granted to the respondent to complete the construction work from the date of issuance of commencement certificate. By a memorandum of understanding dated 12th November, 2009 executed by and between the appellants and the respondent, it was agreed that the construction shall be completed within 18 months from first January, 2010 with a grace period of four months. On 27th June 2013, another memorandum of understanding was entered into by and between the parties under which, the respondent had agreed to complete the construction work by 30th June 2015. On 16th July 2016, the appellants issued a legal notice, terminating the JDA dated 14th December 2007 and two subsequent memorandum of understanding dated 12th November 2009 and 27th June 2013. The notice was replied by the respondent. Thereafter, an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act, bearing A.A. No.339 of 2016 was filed by the respondent before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru. A prayer was made in the said application seeking an order of injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent's share in the schedule property and restraining the appellants from creating third party interests over the schedule property. By the Judgment and order dated 24th March 2017, the said application was rejected.3. On the basis of a petition filed by the respondent under section 11 of the Arbitration Act, by the order dated 25th July 2018 passed by this Court in CMP No.208/2017, the dispute was referred to sole Arbitrator for adjudication which came to be registered as AC. No.131/2018. The claim made by the respondent was for passing of an award against the appellants directing them to convey 50% share of the respondent in the undivided area along with possession of 50% share in the super built up area and covered/open car parking area in the commercial complex constructed on the schedule property and to direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.21 crores towards cost of construction, damages for unlawful termination of the JDA and compensatory damages. The present appellants made a counter claim in a sum of Rs.32,20,000/-.4. An Award was made by the sole Arbitrator on 5th July 2019 in A.C.No.131/2018 holding that the notice of termination of JDA dated 14th December, 2017 issued by the appellants was valid and legal and, therefore, the JDA entered into by and between the appellants and the respondent stood validly terminated from the date of service of the notice. The learned sole Arbitrator has proceeded to dismiss the claim made by the respondent- developer and the counter claim made by the appellants-owner.5. Being aggrieved by the Award dated 5th July 2019 made by the sole Arbitrator in AC.No.131/2018, on 18th September 2019, the respondent has preferred Arbitration suit in Com.A.S. No. 144/2019 in the form of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which is pending adjudication before the Commercial Court. On 22nd June 2020, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court at Bengaluru which has been numbered as Comm. A.A. No.45/2020. A prayer for temporary injunction was made in the said application by filing interlocutory application being IA No.I under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the said Code'). The prayer in the said application was for grant of an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellants from carrying out any further construction activities and from making any structural alterations to the building constructed by the respondent till the disposal of the said application filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. An additional affidavit in support of the said application (IA-I) was filed by the respondent on 20th October 2020 by placing on record the subsequent event of a Joint Development Agreement executed by the appellants in favour of one Sri Dinesh Pullipati in respect of the schedule property. The said Joint Development Agreement is referred as the second JDA.6. By the Judgment and order dated 19th November 2020 which is impugned in this appeal, the interlocutory application IA No. I filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act has been allowed by restraining the appellants from carrying out construction activities on the schedule property and from making modification or alteration to the construction already carried out on the schedule property, till disposal of the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. For challenging the said order dated 19th November, 2020, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants, who are the owners of the schedule property.SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:7. The submission of Shri. Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in support of the appeal is firstly that in view of the law laid down in the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court respectively, no relief could have been granted in an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act filed by the un-successful claimant pending the adjudication of the application filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The decisions are as under:i) Dirk India Private Limited -vs- Maharashtra State Electricity Generation Company Limited (2013 SCC OnLine Bom-481).ii) Wind World (India) Ltd., -vs- Enercon GmbH and others (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1147)iii) Nussli Switzerland Ltd., -vs- Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games (2014 SCC OnLine Del 4834)iv) Singhania Horizons -vs- HRC Engineers Estate Private Limited and another (2016 SCC OnLine Del 550)8. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International INC -vs- Burn Standard Co. Ltd and others ((2006) 11 SCC 181), while deciding the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot correct an error committed by the Arbitrator or correct an award and at best, it can only quash the Award made by the Arbitrator thereby leaving the parties to begin the Arbitration again, if they so desire. He submitted that in the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent has sought a relief of temporary injunction till the disposal of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by it for challenging the Award made by the sole Arbitrator. He submitted that even if the respondent succeeds in the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, at the highest, the Award of the learned sole Arbitrator will be set aside leaving the parties to have an opportunity of again taking recourse to the Arbitration. He submitted that even assuming that the respondent would succeed in the pending application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent will not be entitled to get any relief in the sense that the Court is not empowered to pass an award in favour of the respondent. He submitted that an interim relief sought in an application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can be granted only in the aid of final relief which can be granted on the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. As the maximum relief which the respondent can get in the pending application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is of setting aside the Award passed by the sole Arbitrator, it cannot be said that the relief of temporary injunction sought in the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is in the aid of final relief.9. He pointed out that on 13th March 2020, the appellants have executed second JDA in favour of Shri. Dinesh Pullipati under which, the appellants have agreed to handover the schedule property to the said Mr. Dinesh Pullipati (for short 'new developer') to complete the project from the stage at which it was stopped. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that said new developer is not a party to the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Construction Company Limited and another -vs- Union of India and others (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1520) and submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dirk India (supra) has been quoted with approval by the Apex Court.SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT:10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in the case of Gayatri Balaswamy -vs- ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd (Original petition No.463/2012 decided on 02.09.2014) and submitted that in the said decision, after considering the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra), the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that the Court which deals with an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has a power to modify or reverse or vary the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. He submitted that the Bombay High Court, while deciding the case of Dirk India (supra) has proceeded on an incorrect premise that even if an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is allowed, at highest, the Court can set aside the Award and thereby, leaving open to the parties to again to for arbitration. He submitted that on plain reading of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, there is no distinction made between a party who has lost before Arbitral Tribunal and a party who has succeeded before the Arbitral Tribunal. He urged that after the amendment to Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, after Arbitral Award is made, the parties do not have a remedy of applying under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.11. He submitted that the perusal of the second JDA executed by the appellants in favour of the new developer on 13th March 2020 will show that the new developer has virtually purchased the litigation, as can be seen from the recitals in the said agreement. He pointed out that the second JDA has been executed on the footing that the Award of the sole Arbitrator has become final. He submitted that if the construction activities as per the second JDA executed in favour of the new developer are allowed to continue, the schedule property which is the subject matter of the pending application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act will be virtually lost to the respondent. He submitted that if the schedule property is constructed upon, the very purpose of filing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act will be frustrated.12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that if the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Hindustan Construction (supra) is perused, it is apparent that the issue involved in this appeal never fell for consideration before the Apex Court, inasmuch as, the issue before the Apex Court was regarding the interpretation of Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, as amended in the year 2015.13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gail (India) Ltd -vs- Latin Rasayani Private Ltd (2014 SCC OnLine Guj 14836). He submitted that a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana, in the case of Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd and another -vs- National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management (NITHM) (2019 SCC OnLine TS 1765) took a view that in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court can interfere with the Arbitral Award even by making a modification. He also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sudershan Rao and others -vs- Evershine Builders Pvt Ltd (2012 SCC Online AP 682) and submitted that even in the said decision, a view taken is that when the Arbitral Tribunal rejects the claims for specific performance, a relief claimed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act can always be granted pending the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS:14. On perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that in the interlocutory application (IA No.I) filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code filed by the respondent-developer before the Commercial Court, the prayer sought by the respondent was to restrain the appellants or any other persons claiming through them from carrying on any further construction or from modifying or altering the construction already carried out on the schedule property. During the pendency of the said application, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondent, placing on record the second JDA dated 13th March 2020 executed by the appellants in favour of new developer namely, Shri. Dinesh Pullipati. It is pointed out in the said affidavit that centering materials, scaffolding and other goods of the respondent on the schedule property are being illegally taken away by using trucks. A careful perusal of the second JDA executed by the appellants in favour of new developer shows that the appellants have agreed to give the schedule property to the new developer for proceeding with the further construction work from the stage where it had stopped earlier. Apart from that, under clause-2 of the second JDA, the new developer has been permitted to enter upon the schedule property to complete the project as agreed. Thus, by virtue of the second JDA dated 13th March, 2020, third party interests have already been created in favour of the new developer who, even according to the case of the respondent, has already started certain activities on the schedule property. In fact, the respondent by filing statement of objections to the appeal on 8th February 2020 has relied upon the photographs of the schedule property showing a board displayed thereon which records that the schedule property is being developed by 'Grebrick' and 'NINTHMILE'. In paragraph 62 of the statement of objections, the respondent has categorically stated that the centering material and scaffolding items as well as other goods of the respondent are being taken away from the schedule property. Thus, going by the case made out by the respondent itself, as of today, the new developer who is not made a party to the proceedings either before the Commercial Court or before this Court will be directly affected by the order of temporary injunction granted under the impugned Judgment and order. As per the second JDA dated 13th March 2020, the appellants have already created third party rights over the schedule property much prior to passing of the impugned order by the Commercial Court and that the appellants have allowed the new developer to develop the property. This is one reason why interference will have to be made with the impugned Judgment and order granting temporary injunction.15. Even assuming that the Commercial Court could have exercised its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, though a copy of the second JDA was placed before the Commercial Court, it has not considered the effect of the said second JDA dated 13th March, 2020 and it has ignored the fact that as on the date of passing of the impugned Judgment and order, a third party has been entrusted a right to develop the schedule property.MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9:16. Now we come to the issue of maintainability of the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act by an unsuccessful claimant pending the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for challenging the Arbitral Award. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra). In paragraphs 51 to 54, the Apex Court discussed the issue relating to the scope of the powers of the Court while dealing with the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. In paragraph 52 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus:"52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it".(underlines added)Hence, the Apex Court, in categorical terms, held that while disposing of an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court cannot correct the errors of the Arbitrators and at the highest, it can only quash the Arbitral Award and thereby leaving the parties free to begin the Arbitration again, if it is desired.17. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to another decision of the Apex Court of a bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Kinnari Mullick and another -vs- Ghanshyam Das Damani ((2018) 11 SCC 328). In the first paragraph of the said decision, the Apex Court has noted the question for consideration before it, which reads thus:"This appeal raises a short question as to whether Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") empowers the Court to relegate the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal after having set aside the arbitral award in question and more so suo motu in the absence of any application made in that behalf by the parties to the arbitration proceedings?".This was a case before the Apex Court wherein the Award made by the Arbitrator was set aside on an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Award impugned therein did not disclose the reasons in support of the same. By setting aside the Award, the parties were left to pursue their remedy in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal and affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 34 directed that the Award be send back to the Arbitrator with a direction to support his Award by assigning reasons. Therefore, the issue before the Apex Court in the case of Kinnari Mullick (supra) was whether an order of remand can be made to the Arbitral Tribunal, while deciding the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.18. After referring to the earlier decisions including the decision in the case of McDermott International (supra), the Apex Court, in paragraphs 14 to 16 of its decision in the said case of Kinnari Mullick (supra) held thus:"14. In this backdrop, the question which arises is: whether the highlighted portion in the operative part of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench can be sustained in law? For that, we may advert to Section 34(4) of the Act which is the repository of power invested in the Court. The same reads thus:"34. (4) On receipt of an application under sub- section (1), the court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award."15. On a bare reading of this provision, it is amply clear that the Court can defer the hearing of the application filed under Section 34 for setting aside the award on a written request made by a party to the arbitration proceedings to facilitate the Arbitral Tribunal by resuming the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. The quintessence for exercising power under this provision is that the arbitral award has not been set aside. Further, the challenge to the said award has been set up under Section 34 about the deficiencies in the arbitral award which may be curable by allowing the Arbitral Tribunal to take such measures which can eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 34. This legal position has been expounded in McDermott International Inc. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] In para 8 of the said decision, the Court observed thus: (Bhaskar Industrial case [Bhaskar Industrial Development Ltd. v. South Western Railway, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8330] , SCC OnLine Kar)"8. ... Parliament has not conferred any power of remand to the Court to remit the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act. The object of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act is to give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings or to enable it to take such other action which will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award."16. In any case, the limited discretion available to the Court under Section 34(4) can be exercised only upon a written application made in that behalf by a party to the arbitration proceedings. It is crystal clear that the Court cannot exercise this limited power of deferring the proceedings before it suo motu. Moreover, before formally setting aside the award, if the party to the arbitration proceedings fails to request the Court to defer the proceedings pending before it, then it is not open to the party to move an application under Section 34(4) of the Act. For, consequent to disposal of the main proceedings under Section 34 of the Act by the Court, it would become functus officio. In other words, the limited remedy available under Section 34(4) is required to be invoked by the party to the arbitral proceedings before the award is set aside by the Court".(underlines supplied)19. Hence, the larger Bench of the Apex Court has approved the view taken in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra) by holding that Parliament has not conferred any power on the Court to remit the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal. However, there is a power to adjourn the proceedings of the application filed under Section 34 for the limited purposes mentioned in sub- section (4) of Section 34 of the Act. The object of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act is to give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings to enable it to take such action which will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the Arbitral Award.20. At this stage, we must make a useful reference to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaskar Industrial Development Limited -vs- South Western Railway, Hubballi (2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8330) wherein the issue before the Division Bench of this Court was whether a Court while dealing with an application- petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has a power to remit the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal after setting aside the Arbitral Award. After relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra), in paragraph 8, the Division Bench of this Court held thus:"8. A plain reading of Section 34 of the Act extracted above will show that Parliament has not conferred any power of remand to the Court to remit the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings as provided under sub-Section (4) of Section 34 of the Act. The object of sub-Section (4) of Section 34 is to give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume the arbitral proceedings or to enable it to take such other action which will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. This provision (sub-Section (4)) cannot be invoked, once the arbitral Award is set-aside".21. In paragraph-52 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra), the Apex Court specifically held that while deciding the application under Section 34, the Court cannot correct the errors of the Arbitrator and it can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the Arbitration again. If the errors are such that the Arbitral Award is rendered illegal, there is no option available to the Court to correct such errors. The only option available to the Court in such case is to set aside the Award without correcting the said error. The reason is that after the parties have consciously chosen to exclude the jurisdictional Court, the parties should again go back to the Arbitration after the Award is set aside.22. Incorporation of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very significant. It empowers the Court on an application filed by the parties to give the Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. If the intention of the Legislature was to confer a power on the Court while dealing with an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to correct the errors or mistakes committed by the Arbitral Tribunal, there was no reason for the Legislature to incorporate sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. If it is held that the Court dealing with an application under Section 34 has a power to modify the Award or to correct errors of the Arbitrator and to make a modified award, the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 34 will become redundant, as it will not be necessary for the Court to exercise the power under sub-section (4) of Section 34, as the Court can itself correct the errors. In paragraph 52 of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra) the word "only" has been used while observing that the Court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators and it can "only" quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired.23. At this stage, it is necessary to make a reference to Section 43 of the Arbitration Act, which reads thus:"43. Limitation - (1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court.(2) For the purposes of this section and the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), an arbitration shall be deemed to have commenced on the date referred in Section 21.(3) Where an arbitration agreement to submit future disputes to arbitration provides that any claim to which the agreement applies shall be barred unless some step to commence arbitral proceedings is taken within a time fixed by the agreement, and a dispute arises to which the agreement applies, the Court, if it is of opinion that in the circumstances of the case undue hardship would otherwise be caused, and notwithstanding that the time so fixed has expired, may on such terms, if any, as the justice of the case may require, extend the time for such period as it thinks proper.(4) Where the Court orders that an arbitral award be set aside, the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the Court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for the commencement of the proceedings (including arbitration) with respect to the dispute so submitted".(underlines supplied)Sub-Section (4) of Section 43 applies to a situation when the Court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act sets aside an Arbitral Award. Sub-Section (4) provides for exclusion of the period spent in Arbitration and the application under Section 34. This enables the successful party in Section 34 application to again take recourse to Arbitration after the Award is set aside by the Court. If the intention of the Legislature was to confer a power on the Court dealing with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to modify the Award or to make a fresh Award, there was no reason to make a provision in the form of sub-section (4) of Section 43. This supports the conclusion that the Court dealing with application under Section 34 cannot modify or substitute Arbitral Awards.24. Therefore, in a case, where the Court dealing with an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act finds that the claim of the claimant was erroneously rejected or the Arbitral Tribunal has committed an illegality by rejecting the claim, the Court can set aside the award so that the claimant can again go back to the Arbitration. In such a case, by correcting the error made by the Arbitrator, the Court cannot make an Award in favour of the claimant after setting aside award. If, after perusal of the award, a view is taken by the Court that the rejection of the claim made by the claimant by the Arbitral Tribunal is illegal, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph-52 of Mc Dermott International (supra), the Court is required to set aside the arbitral award enabling the parties to begin the arbitration again. As pointed out earlier, there are two parts in the conclusions recorded by the Apex Court in paragraph-52. The first part is that the Court cannot correct the errors committed by the Arbitrator and the second part is that the Court can "only" quash the Award. Therefore, if an Award rejecting the claim of the claimant who has filed an application under Section 34 is found to be illegal, a fresh award cannot be made by the Court in favour of the claimant while allowing the application filed under Section 34. The only option in such a case is to set aside the award and leave the parties to resume the Arbitration once again.25. In the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Gayatri Balaswamy (supra), in paragraphs 34 and 35 it is held thus:"34. In Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., 2006 (11) SCC 181, the Supreme Court was concerned with a challenge to various Partial/Interim Awards as well as a Final Award passed by the Arbitrator, appointed by the Supreme Court. The Arbitrator in that case first passed a partial award. Thereafter, Applications under Section 33 of the 1996 Act were filed on the ground that certain claims had not been dealt with by the Arbitrator in his Partial Award. Though a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the entitlement to pass a Partial Award, the Arbitrator passed an Additional Award. It was only thereafter that an Application under Section 34 was filed questioning both the Partial Award and the Additional Award. During the pendency of the Application, a Final Award was also passed and an Application challenging the same under Section 34 was filed. Several questions arose before the Supreme Court, including the question as to whether a Partial Award is permissible in law. After holding in Paragraph 35 of the Report that a Partial Award, is in effect and substance, an Interim Award within the meaning of Sections 31(6) & 2I of the Act, the Supreme Court held that its validity is not open to question. Thereafter, the Supreme Court took up for consideration all other challenges to the Award. Before doing so, the Court indicated the legal scope of challenge to an Arbitration Award, in Paragraphs 45 to 48 of the Report. Taking note of the radical departure made in the 1996 Act from the 1940 Act, the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph 52 as follows:"The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of Courts, for the review of the Arbitral Award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the Court is envisaged in few circumstances only like in case of fraud or bias by the Arbitrators, violation of Natural Justice, etc. The Court cannot correct errors of Arbitrators. It can only quash the Award leaving the parties free to begin the Arbitration again if it is desired. So the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the Court at minimum level and this can be justified as the parties to the Agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the Court's jurisdiction by opting for Arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it."35. But, as in the case of other decisions, which I have dealt with in the previous paragraphs, the Supreme Court was not directly concerned, even in Mc Dermott, with the interpretation to be given to the expression "set aside" appearing in Section 34. The observations made in the paragraph extracted above, were not given in an answer to a pointed question as to whether the Court has the power under Section 34 to modify or revise or vary an Award. Therefore, I do not think that the question raised in this case, is settled by the Supreme Court in Mc Dermott finally".(underlines supplied)26. With greatest respect to the learned Single Judge (as he then was) of the Madras High Court, in our view, he has ignored the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 52 in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra) wherein the Apex Court categorically held that the Court cannot correct the error of the Arbitrator and it can only set aside the award.27. The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, in paragraph-52 has equated the jurisdiction of the Court which deals with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on par with the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by Section 115 of the said Code.Sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the said Code reads thus: "115. Revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears -(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings."(underlines supplied)28. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 115 of the said Code is completely different from the limited supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. We may note here that in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Limited ((2009) 10 SCC 63), the Apex Court held that while dealing with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it is not permissible to a Court to examine the correctness of the findings of the Arbitrator, as if it was sitting in appeal over his findings. The powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code are much wider. High Court can interfere with the decision even on the ground of material irregularity as is clear from clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the said Code. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan - vs- Tuffail Mohammed (AIR 1991 SC 455), the High Court while exercising its power under Section 115 of the said Code can interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Court sub-ordinate to it on the ground that it is perverse. The High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the said Code can interfere with the findings of the Court on the ground of non-consideration of evidence.29. From the proviso to Section-115 of the said Code, it is crystal clear that a specific power has been conferred on the High Court while dealing with revision filed under Section 115 of the said Code to vary or reverse an order made by the Court subordinate to the High Court. In contrast, we may consider Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which reads thus:"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub- section (3).(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if--(a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that--(i) a party was under some incapacity; or(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration:Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or(b) the Court finds that--(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.Explanation 1.--For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,--(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.Explanation 2.--For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.(2-A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the court, if the court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence".30. In contrast to Section 115 of the said Code, which confers a specific power to vary or reverse an order of Civil Court, Section 34 of the Arbitration Act refers to only setting aside the Awards. Hence, with respect, the view taken by the Madras High Court is not correct. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gail (India) Ltd (supra) has not even adverted to the effect of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra). In the case of Saptarishi Hotels (supra), the Division Bench of the High Court of Telengana has proceeded to hold that the Court, while dealing with the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, can even modify the Award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal while sustaining it in relation to a part thereof and setting it aside in relation to other part. We are unable to take the said view for the reasons recorded earlier. Even if the Court which decides an application made by unsuccessful claimant is satisfied that a part of the claim of the claimant could not have been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal, at the highest, that part of the award could be set aside, so that the claimant can again take recourse to the Arbitral proceedings. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Sudershan Rao (supra), has not adverted to the limitation on the powers of the Court while dealing with an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.31. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act reads thus:"9. Interim measures, etc. by Courts - (1) A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Section 36, apply to a Court:--(i) for the appointment of a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or(ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters, namely:--(a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;(b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration;(c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence;(d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver;(e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient, and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of, and in relation to, any proceedings before it.(2) Where, before the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, a court passes an order for any interim measure of protection under sub-section (1), the arbitral proceedings shall be commenced within a period of ninety days from the date of such order or within such further time as the court may determine.(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the court shall not entertain an application under sub- section (1), unless the court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 efficacious".(underlines supplied)32. Thus, on its plain reading, an application under Section 9 can be made at three stages. (i) Before commencement of Arbitration; (ii) during the pending of arbitral proceedings and (iii) after making an Award, but before it is enforced. Hence, after conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, recourse can be taken to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Award is enforced. The third contingency will arise only if there is an award made which is capable of being enforced. If, by the award, the claim is rejected, the unsuccessful party cannot take recourse to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, pending the decision on Section 34 application.33. On this background, now we refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Dirk India (supra). In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said decision, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held thus:"13. Two facets of Section 9 merit emphasis. The first relates to the nature of the orders that can be passed under clauses (i) and (ii). Clause (i) contemplates an order appointing a guardian for a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purposes of arbitral proceedings. Clause (ii) contemplates an interim measure of protection for: (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration; and (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject-matter of the dispute in arbitration; (d) an interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; and (e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. The underlying theme of each one of the sub-clauses of clause (ii) is the immediate and proximate nexus between the interim measure of protection and the preservation, protection and securing of the subject-matter of the dispute in the arbitral proceedings. In other words, the orders that are contemplated under clause (ii) are regarded as interim measures of protection intended to protect the claim in arbitration from being frustrated. The interim measure is intended to safeguard the subject-matter of the dispute in the course of the arbitral proceedings. The second facet of Section 9 is the proximate nexus between the orders that are sought and the arbitral proceedings. When an interim measure of protection is sought before or during arbitral proceedings, such a measure is a step in aid to the fruition of the arbitral proceedings. When sought after an arbitral award is made but before it is enforced, the measure of protection is intended to safeguard the fruit of the proceedings until the eventual enforcement of the award. Here again the measure of protection is a step in aid of enforcement. It is intended to ensure that enforcement of the award results in a realisable claim and that the award is not rendered illusory by dealings that would put the subject of the award beyond the pale of enforcement. Now it is in this background that it is necessary for the Court to impart a purposive interpretation to the meaning of the expression "at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with section 36". Under Section 36, an arbitral award can be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. The arbitral award can be enforced where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired or in the event of such an application having been made, it has been refused. The enforcement of an award enures to the benefit of the party who has secured an award in the arbitral proceedings. That is why the enforceability of an award under Section 36 is juxtaposed in the context of two time frames, the first being where an application for setting aside an arbitral award has expired and the second where an application for setting aside an arbitral award was made but was refused. The enforceability of an award, in other words, is defined with reference to the failure of the other side to file an application for setting aside the award within the stipulated time limit or having filed such an application has failed to establish a case for setting aside the arbitral award. Once a challenge to the arbitral award has either failed under Section 34 having been made within the stipulated period or when no application for setting aside the arbitral award has been made within time, the arbitral award becomes enforceable at the behest of the party for whose benefit the award enures. Contextually, therefore, the scheme of Section 9 postulates an a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

pplication for the grant of an interim measure of protection after the making of an arbitral award and before it is enforced for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement of the award. An interim measure of protection within the meaning of Section 9(ii) is intended to protect through the measure, the fruits of a successful conclusion of the arbitral proceedings. A party whose claim has been rejected in the course of the arbitral proceedings cannot obviously have an arbitral award enforced in accordance with Section 36. The object and purpose of an interim measure after the passing of the arbitral award but before it is enforced is to secure the property, goods or amount for the benefit of the party which seeks enforcement.14. The Court which exercises jurisdiction under Section 34 is not a court of first appeal under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appellate court to which recourse is taken against a decree of the trial Court has powers which are co- extensive with those of the trial Court. A party which has failed in its claim before a trial Judge can in appeal seek a judgment of reversal and in consequence, the passing of a decree in terms of the claim in the suit. The court to which an arbitration petition challenging the award under Section 34 lies does not pass an order decreeing the claim. Where an arbitral claim has been rejected by the arbitral tribunal, the court under Section 34 may either dismiss the objection to the arbitral award or in the exercise of its jurisdiction set aside the arbitral award. The setting aside of an arbitral award rejecting a claim does not result in the claim which was rejected by the Arbitrator being decreed as a result of the judgment of the court in a petition under Section 34. To hold that a petition under Section 9 would be maintainable after the passing of an arbitral award at the behest of DIPL whose claim has been rejected would result in a perversion of the object and purpose underlying Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. DIPL's application under Section 9, if allowed, would result in the grant of interim specific performance of a contract in the teeth of the findings recorded in the arbitral award. The interference by the Court at this stage to grant what in essence is a plea for a mandatory order for interim specific performance will negate the sanctity and efficacy of arbitration as a form of alternate disputes redressal. What such a litigating party cannot possibly obtain even upon completion of the proceedings under Section 34, it cannot possibly secure in a petition under Section 9 after the award. The object and purpose of Section 9 is to provide an interim measure that would protect the subject-matter of the arbitral proceedings whether before or during the continuance of the arbitral proceedings and even thereafter upon conclusion of the proceedings until the award is enforced. Once the award has been made and a claim has been rejected as in the present case, even a successful challenge to the award under Section 34 does not result an order decreeing the claim. In this view of the matter, there could be no occasion to take recourse to Section 9. Enforcement for the purpose of Section 36 as a decree of the Court is at the behest of a person who seeks to enforce the award".(underlines added)The view taken by the Bombay High Court in paragraph 13 above has been quoted with approval in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Construction (supra).34. According to us, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is consistent with the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Mc Dermott International (supra). Hence, the relief of injunction granted in the present case on an application made under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act could not have been granted.35. In the facts of the present case, the entire claim made by the respondent has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, even if the respondent succeeds in the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, at the highest, the Arbitral Award can be set aside, leaving the parties to begin fresh arbitration. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order of interim relief granted under the impugned order by allowing the application filed under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the said Code is illegal as it is not in aid of the final relief which can be granted in the pending application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. There is a second reason why the said order is illegal. Even going by the material placed on record, it is evident that now the development of the schedule property has been undertaken by the new developer by virtue of the second JDA executed by the appellants on 13th March 2020. By the said second JDA, third party interests are already created in favour of the new developer who is not before the Court. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of injunction cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order:ORDERi) The appeal is allowed;ii) That part of the impugned order dated 19th November 2020 passed by the LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city (CCH-84) by which IA No.I is allowed, is hereby set aside and the application being IA No. I filed in Com.A.A. No.45/2020 stands dismissed;iii) The direction regarding expeditious hearing of Com. A.S. No. 144/2019 is hereby maintained;iv) There shall be no order as to the costs.
O R