M/S. ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LID. versus M/S KALINGA MINING CORPORATION AND ORS.

M/S. ARVIND CONSTRUCTIONS CO. PVT. LID. versus M/S KALINGA MINING CORPORATION AND ORS.

Appeal not maintainable on contest of firm registration; no interim relief justified as the agency agreement expired, is not specifically enforceable, and interim powers under Section 9 must follow general principles of injunction and are not independent of Specific Relief Act. All substantive issues left open for sole arbitrator to decide.

Parties
Appellant: M/s. Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No. 1: M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation; Respondents: Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of High Court of Orissa Vacating Interim Order Granted by District Judge Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Registration of Partnership, Effect of Re Registration, Arbitration Agreement, Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act, Appointment of Arbitrator
Arbitration Partnership Re Registration of Partnership Effect of Re Registration Arbitration Agreement Interim Relief Under Arbitration Act Appointment of Arbitrator

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s. Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Appellant

M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation

Respondent No. 1

Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of High Court of Orissa Vacating Interim Order Granted by District Judge Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether re-registration of firm affects its status for litigation and contract purposes
  2. 2 Whether interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted for an agency agreement after expiration
  3. 3 Whether Section 9 powers are independent of restrictions under the Specific Relief Act

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal not maintainable on contest of firm registration; no interim relief justified as the agency agreement expired, is not specifically enforceable, and interim powers under Section 9 must follow general principles of injunction and are not independent of Specific Relief Act. All substantive issues left open for sole arbitrator to decide.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Nomination of previous arbitrators revoked
  • Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (former Chief Justice of India) appointed as sole arbitrator