Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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