Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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"]

Similar News