Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 498A IPC | Vague Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts Against Relatives Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims | Tribunal Must Adopt Standardised Notional Income Charts For Determining Loss Of Future Earnings: Karnataka High Court Suit On Dishonoured Cheque Is Based On Statutory Liability Under Negotiable Instruments Act And Not On Underlying Original Transaction: Kerala High Court State Cannot Re-Litigate Grounds Rejected In Earlier Final Judgment To Deny Employment: Allahabad High Court Orders Appointment of Librarians JJ Act | JJBs Cannot Simply 'Return' Child In Conflict With Law To Police Without Passing Placement Orders If Bail Not Granted: Andhra Pradesh High Court PMLA | Official Banking Transactions In Usual Course Of Business Cannot Be Construed As Proceeds Of Crime: Bombay High Court Section 41A CrPC | Serving Notice After Arrest Is Illegal, Police Cannot Simply Arrest To Ask Questions: Bombay High Court Fit-Out Possession Without Completion Certificate Is Not Valid Possession; Builder Cannot Charge Delayed Interest Or GST When Default Is On Its Part: Chandigarh State Commission Appellate Court Must Not Disturb Acquittal Unless Trial Court’s View Is Perverse Or Manifestly Illegal: Gujarat High Court Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Landlord Divesting Ownership Via Pre-Suit Sale Deed Loses Locus Standi Under Section 109 TP Act; Summary Eviction Decree Impermissible: Delhi High Court Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Under Section 144 Exists: Calcutta High Court 'Mere Assertion Of Higher Rent By Landlord Cannot Oust DRC Act': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Eviction Decree, Remands Matter Back Arbitration Clause In Agreement No Safe Harbour For Criminal Breach Of Trust; Pre-Arrest Bail In Economic Offences An Exception: Allahabad High Court Order 7 Rule 10 CPC | Pecuniary Jurisdiction Cannot Be Determined Solely On Plaintiff's Oral Admission In Cross-Examination: Madras High Court Principle Of Parity Applies Even If Earlier Order Was Declared 'Not A Precedent': Orissa High Court Acquisition Lapses If Authority Inactive For Over 5 Years Excluding Stay; Bar On Subsequent Purchasers Inapplicable If Land Stood Released: Madhya Pradesh High Court Senior Citizens Act  | Summary Eviction Remedy Cannot Be Extended To Daughter-In-Law As She Is Neither 'Child' Nor 'Relative': Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 471 IPC | Mere Absence Of Direct Forgery Does Not Absolve Accused Of Using Forged Document As Genuine: Rajasthan High Court Criminal Proceedings Against Husband's Relatives Cannot Continue On Vague & Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts: Telangana High Court Magistrate's Inability To Recall Order Does Not Preclude High Court From Restoring Cheque Bounce Complaint Dismissed In Default: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Calcutta High Court Confirms Interim Order Restraining Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. From Dealing with Assets Pending Arbitration

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, confirmed the interim order granting relief to Bridge Track and Tower Private Limited in a dispute against Simplex Infrastructures Limited. The judgment, delivered on 19th July 2023, dealt with an application under Section 9 and Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where the petitioner sought interim relief and appointment of an arbitrator.

The court’s decision upholds the petitioner’s claim against the respondent, Simplex Infrastructures Limited, and restrains them from dealing with or disposing of their assets and properties or creating any third-party rights on the subject matter of the disputes/arbitration agreements.

The crux of the ruling revolved around the respondent’s belated objection concerning separate arbitration clauses in six purchase orders. Justice Bhattacharya dismissed the respondent’s objection, remarking that the objection appeared to be an afterthought and cited the respondent’s act of treating the six purchase orders as one for payment purposes.

“In any event, the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner clearly states that the respondent has paid Rs. 32 lacs as on 27th February 2019 by way of a single cheque... Having treated the 6 purchase orders as one and having clubbed all of them for making a onetime payment of Rs. 32 lacs, the respondent cannot now take the point of maintainability on the ground of each being a separate purchase order,” Justice Bhattacharya wrote in the judgment.

The court also rejected the respondent’s claim of a change in circumstances since the interim order and emphasized that no subsequent events justified modifying the said order.

The ruling marks a crucial development in the ongoing dispute, and the court’s confirmation of the interim order brings relief to Bridge Track and Tower Private Limited. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to arbitration clauses and maintains the sanctity of such clauses in commercial agreements.

Date of Decision: 19th July 2023

Bridge Track and Tower Private Limited  Vs. Simplex Infrastructures Limited

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Bridge_Track_And_Tower_Private_vs_Simplex_Infrastructures_Limited_on_19_July_2023_Cal.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News