It was disclosed before the learned Arbitrator by the respondents in their reply to application under Section 17 of the Act filed by the petitioner and the same was reiterated in the affidavit affirmed by Respondent No.
289 OF 2003 IN SLP Civil No.
A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court rejected the said application.
1 number only amounted to suppression of facts but also perjury.
An application was thereafter filed by them before the learned Arbitrator for modification of the said order dated 25.03.2003 by offering to furnish property security purported to have been situate at Secunderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh instead of bank guarantee.
2 of 2003.
Prior to that it gave a list of all the pending customers at Hybderabad and Vijayawada.
Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court thereagainst being Writ Petition No.
Respondents also by an affidavit filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court admitted their liability stating In this instance also the Petitioner companypany had on its own given the particulars of the amounts due from it to the companyplainant companypany by its letter dated 5th April, 1997 wherein it accepted a liability of Rs.
An interlocutory application was filed by the respondents before this Court being IA No.
In the meantime, the petitioner filed a companytempt petition before this Court on 26.07.2003.
8,00,700/ .
Needless to state that under the Supreme Court order dated 6.9.2002 paragraph 3 the interim order has to be companyplied with within four weeks from the date of the order.
On the basis of the said representations, this Court by an order dated 6.09.2002 referred the subject matter of the dispute to the arbitration of Justice A.M. Ahmadi, a former Chief Justice of this Court.
1 Mahendra C. Mehta, who is present in Court today, shall meet in the office of the Collector, Hyderabad on 26th February, 2007 at 11.00 a.m. As it is stated that a writ petition bearing No.
1 stating The property of M s. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. at Secunderabad was encumbered.
7.63 Cr.
While so doing, the District Collector, Hyderabad made a false report that a report was submitted to the government that the lands are required for public purpose like establishment of hospitals, schools, play grounds, etc.,
By an order dated 9.02.2007, therefore, it was directed The parties hereto should find out ways and means to sell the property belonging to the first respondent companypany herein, situate at Secunderabad, jointly by the petitioner as also the Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad.
Relying on or on the basis of the said arbitration agreement, the respondents herein filed an application purported to be under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Act .
In the said meeting, it transpired that the property in question, which is in dispute, belonged to the State of Andhra Pradesh and it claiming right, title and interest therein had initiated a proceeding against the respondents in respect thereof under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982.
763.22 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today.
On or about 23.07.2004, this Court directed the alleged companytemnors to file affidavit disclosing details of their present assets as also that of the Company pursuant whereto, an affidavit was filed by Respondent No.
He had a flat at D 1, Maya Apartment admeasuring 800 sq.
Indisputably, there existed an arbitration agreement in the companytract entered into by and between the parties, Clause 57 whereof reads as under If the differences or disputes, except dispute pertaining to termination, shall arise between the parties hereto as to the companystruction or true intent and meaning of any of the terms and companyditions herein companytained or as to any payment to be made in pursuance hereof or as to any other matter arising out of or companynected with or incidental to these presents or as to the rights, duties and obligation of either party, such difference or dispute whenever and so often as the same shall arise, shall be referred to the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi under their rules for the time being in force and the award in pursuance thereof shall be binding on the parties.
An award was made on 10.04.2005 as against the Company for a sum of Rs.
763.22 lakhs are in dispute, I am number inclined to make an interim award under section 17 of the Act read with Order 12 Rule 6, CPC.
A further reply has also been filed by the respondents stating That the District Collector has needlessly and unwarrantly traced earlier rejection of the regularization proposals by the government by cryptic and number speaking order and companysequent filing of writ petition No.
It appears from the records that the respondents herein had given an undertaking number to alienate their assets or encumber or create third party interest in the property at Secunderabad.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst before a Division Bench which was also dismissed.
The proposed term of reference was also agreed to by the respondents.
Respondents admitted their liability of the petitioner to the extent of Rs.
1 herein on 7.07.2004.
at Ashoka Road, Bangalore which was sold on 3.02.2004 for Rs.
Curiously enough, it was number disclosed that the said property was encumbered in more than one way and, as would appear from the discussions made hereinafter, the property was being claimed by the State of Andhra Pradesh as having vested in it.
763.22 lakhs within a period of four weeks from the said date directing Since the documents relied upon by the claimant companypany in support of its claim for Rs.
The learned Arbitrator rejected the application for modification by an order dated 2.08.2003 but extended time for furnishing bank guarantee upto 27.08.2003.
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL NO.
A Special Leave Petition was filed before this Court.
021/MML/97 dated 5.4.1997 wherein they admitted that there was a shortfall of Rs.
Petitioner herein agreed for reference of the disputes and differences between the parties to arbitration inter alia on the companydition that the respondents shall deposit the amount or furnish security and or companyply with the directions of the learned Arbitrator in case such directions and or interim orders are passed by the learned Arbitrator in the following terms All the parties to this S.L.P. shall by way of affidavit give undertaking to this Honble Court to furnish the security and or companyply with the directions of learned Arbitrator in case the learned Arbitrator directs any of the parties to furnish the security and or companyply with any other interim order of the learned Arbitrator.
In furtherance of the said order, the Collector of the Hyderabad District held a meeting.
15920 of 2004.
He was the manager of Hyderabad Auto Services and drawing a salary of Rs.
The companyplainant companypany had been delivering these vehicles through other dealers as with the advent of this dispute with the Petitioner companypany it terminated its dealership.
15 of 2000 by the respondent when the matter was remitted back to government to pass appropriate orders taking into account the recommendations of the District Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue dated 22.10.1997 and 30.9.1997 which facts are already in the record of this Honourable Court.
7.63 crores in respect of supply of vehicles made by it, as would appear from the minutes of the meeting dated 5.04.1997 which is as under MML also provided a letter No.
15920/2004 is pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in regard to the said property, we request the Chief Justice of the High companyrt to companysider the desirability of placing the said writ petition before an appropriate Bench for its very early disposal.
But, the same was withdrawn on 6.05.2003.
Petitioner herein is manufacturer of cars.
The said proceeding was decided in favour of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
However, on or about 28.06.2003, it was disclosed that the property was encumbered.
The Company obtained various advances from the customers on behalf of the petitioner.
As the Company or its Directors did number pay even the said admitted amount to the petitioner, it filed a suit for recovery thereof.
13305 of 2002 B. SINHA, J This companytempt petition arises in a somewhat peculiar circumstance.
763.22 lakhs and also gave the repayment schedule.
Alleged companytemnors were Directors of a Company known as M s. Mahalaxmi Motors Limited Company .
It is also number in dispute that despite pendency of the aforementioned companytempt petition, the property belonging to companypany at Bangalore was disposed of.
In fact vehicles have been delivered to meet of these in the said list, and deliveries are still on to the remaining persons.
However, I am prima facie satisfied that the claimant companypany has made out a prima facie case for an interim order directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.
The said writ petition having been dismissed, the appeal of the respondents and the Company preferred thereagainst was taken up for hearing along with this matter and by reason of a judgment and order of this date, we are disposing of the same also.
The question as to whether the respondents should furnish bank guarantee or number came up for companysideration before the learned Arbitrator and by an order dated 25.03.2003 a direction was issued upon the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.
7.63 crores with interest at the rate of 8 in favour of the petitioner along with companyts and expenses.
It, however, did number pay the amount to petitioner herein.
For the said purpose, the Chief Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, the Collector of the Hyderabad District as also the Managing Director of respondent No.
15,000/ p.m. Petitioner in its reply denied and disputed the said statement and companytended that by reason of sale of property at Bangalore, a further companytempt has been companymitted.
It was urged that the affidavit of Respondent No.
