High Court of DelhiO.M.P.(I) (COMM.)/481/2018

Ncml Financew Private Limited v. Mukesh Naresh Singh & ORS.

2019-02-14Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla2 pages

$~13 to 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 481/2018 & I.A. No.17869/2018 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 482/2018 & I.A. No.17871/2018 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 483/2018 & I.A. No.17873/2018 + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 484/2018 & I.A. No.17875/2018 NCML FINANCEW PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Anoop Baghai, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Puneet Bajaj, Adv. alongwith Mr.Pranav Chawla, AR.

versus MUKESH NARESH SINGH & ORS.

..... Respondents JAGDAMBA AGENCY & ORS.

..... Respondents ANNAPURNA TRADING COMPANY & ORS. ..... Respondents MAA GAURI POULTRY PVT LIMITED & ORS...... Respondents Through:

Mr.Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv. for NCML Mr.Sidhartha Barua and Ms.Adity Gupta, Advs. for IDBI Bank.

Mr.Amit Singh and Mr.Raj Kumar Parahar, Adv. for Mr.Rakesh Singh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R D E R

% 14.02.2019 These petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for relief primarily against IDBI Bank which has issued a notice of public auction of goods lying at Godown no.3, Khasra No. 138, 139, P.H. No. 22, Gumthala, Gram Selu, The. Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur-441501.

The petitioner claims rights over these goods on the basis of Warehouse Receipt in its favour. On the other hand, IDBI Bank also claims rights over these goods in form of separate Warehouse Receipts and Loan Facility Agreement from third parties who are not parties to the Arbitration Agreement.

Learned counsel for the IDBI Bank, therefore, argues that the present petitions would not be maintainable under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and if at all, the disputes would have to be adjudicated by an appropriate Court.

In view of the objection raised, learned senior counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to file appropriate proceedings for seeking enforcement of the rights of the petitioner.

The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. The interim order dated 15.01.2019 shall continue to remain in force for another period of ten days from today. Any observation made by this Court in any of the orders passed in the present proceedings shall not bind the competent Court to adjudicate the disputes in accordance with the law. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 14, 2019/Arya