# R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Varanasi v. M/s Krishna Bros. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-21
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/r-m-u-p-s-r-t-c-varanasi-v-m-s-krishna-bros-opp-party-47719
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Arbitration Act, 1996 -
Section 9-Appeal against order allowing
application of the Respondent filed u/s 9 of
the Act, 1996-work order issued by the
Appellant in favour of Respondent for
supply of mineral water-security depositedwork order for limited period-Respondent
supplied goods but sum of Rs. 20, 90,744/-
was
due-Appeallant
declined
to
payRespondent approached commercial court
by
an
application
for
directing
the
Appellant to make payment plus interestwhile exercising power u/s 9-Court cannot
decide the claim on merits-court below
entered into merits and held deductions
made
by
the
Appellant
were
not
permissible under the contract-impugned
order set aside.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

## Text

312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided always that the District
Magistrate or such other officer, or
committee, or authority shall, as early as
possible, make preliminary arrangements
for the holding of first elections and
generally of expediting the assumption by
the Municipality of its duties when
constituted."

10. The Gram Panchayat of which the
petitioner was Pradhan, had ceased to exist
in view of the constitutional scheme and
the provisions of the Act. The petitioner is
left with no subsisting right to continue to
function as Pradhan or to resist holding of
election of the newly constituted Nagar
Panchayat.

11. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 312
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Appeal U/s 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 No. 202 of 2022

R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Varanasi ...Appellant
Versus
M/s Krishna Bros. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey, Sri Rajesh Chandra
Dwivedi

Civil Law - Arbitration Act, 1996 -
Section 9-Appeal against order allowing
application of the Respondent filed u/s 9 of
the Act, 1996-work order issued by the
Appellant in favour of Respondent for
supply of mineral water-security depositedwork order for limited period-Respondent
supplied goods but sum of Rs. 20, 90,744/-
was
due-Appeallant
declined
to
payRespondent approached commercial court
by
an
application
for
directing
the
Appellant to make payment plus interestwhile exercising power u/s 9-Court cannot
decide the claim on merits-court below
entered into merits and held deductions
made
by
the
Appellant
were
not
permissible under the contract-impugned
order set aside.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vivek Saran, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh
Chandra Dwivedi for the respondent. With
their consent, the instant appeal is being
disposed of finally at this stage itself.

2. The instant appeal is directed
against the order dated 17.5.2022, passed
by Presiding Officer, Commercial Court,
Varanasi, in Arbitration Misc. Case No.
4/2022, allowing the application of the
respondent, purportedly filed under Section
9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. The appellant has been directed to
pay a sum of Rs. 12,72,783/- to the
respondent within one month, along with
interest @ 7% per annum, since 24.1.2022,
by
way
of
damages.
Thereby
the
application under Section 9 is "decreed
with cost".

3. The brief facts of the case are that a
work order dated 17.12.2018 was issued by
the appellant in favour of the respondent
for supply of bottles of mineral water. The
respondent had deposited Rs. 30,000/- as
security money, in terms of the work order.
The work order was for limited period, till
10 All. R.M. U.P.S.R.T.C. Varanasi Vs. M/s Krishna Bros.
313
permanent arrangement in this behalf is
made by the Headquarter at Lucknow.

4. The case of the respondent is
that it had supplied the goods in
pursuance of the contract, but a sum of
Rs. 20,90,744/- was due and payable to
it. The appellant had declined to pay the
same by its letter dated 24.1.2022. The
respondent accordingly, approached the
Commercial Court by way of an
application, praying inter alia for a
direction to the appellant to make
payment of the remaining sum of Rs.
20,90,744/-, plus interest @ 8% per
annum and cost of litigation.

5. The application does not specify
the provision under which it was filed.
However, it seems that it was registered
as a miscellaneous case and has been
decided, treating it to be an application
filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and
Conciliation
Act,
1996.
The
appellant had filed objection to the
arbitration
application,
specifically
raising the issue that the rates at which
the goods were supplied, were contrary
to
the
rates
prescribed
by
the
Headquarter.
Consequently,
certain
deductions were made and that the
claim of the respondent for payment of
any additional sum is not sustainable.
The appellant also mentioned that only
a sum of Rs. 3,16,363/- is due and steps
were being taken to make payment of
the said amount.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant submitted that the directions
issued by the court below in purported
exercise of power under Section 9 of
the Act are without jurisdiction. It is
urged that the power under Section 9 of
the Act, cannot be exercised to allow
the entire claim, or to decide the issues
on merits. It is also submitted that there
is no indication in the application filed
by the respondent, nor in the impugned
order, that there was any arbitration
clause, or any intention on part of the
respondent to commence the arbitration
proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent
fairly stated that he is not in position to
defend the order.

8. Section 9 of the Act relates to
interim measures, etc. by Court and reads
as follows: -

9. Interim measures, etc., by Court.?
(1)] A party may, before or during arbitral
proceedings or at any time after the making
of the arbitral award but before it is
enforced in accordance with section 36,
apply to a court?

(i) for the appointment of a guardian
for a minor or person of unsound mind for
the purposes of arbitral proceedings; or

(ii)
for an interim measure of
protection in respect of any of the following
matters, namely:?

(a) the preservation, interim custody
or sale of any goods which are the subjectmatter of the arbitration agreement;

(b) securing the amount in dispute in
the arbitration;

(c) the detention, preservation or
inspection of any property or thing which is
the subject-matter of the dispute in
arbitration, or as to which any question
may arise therein and authorising for any
of the aforesaid purposes any person to
enter upon any land or building in the
possession of any party, or authorising any
samples to be taken or any observation to
be made, or experiment to be tried, which
may be necessary or expedient for the
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purpose of obtaining full information or
evidence;

(d)
interim
injunction
or
the
appointment of a receiver;

(e) such other interim measure of
protection as may appear to the Court to be
just and convenient, and the Court shall
have the same power for making orders as
it has for the purpose of, and in relation to,
any proceedings before it.

(2) Where, before the commencement
of the arbitral proceedings, a Court passes
an order for any interim measure of
protection under sub-section (1), the
arbitral proceedings shall be commenced
within a period of ninety days from the date
of such order or within such further time as
the Court may determine.
(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been
constituted, the Court shall not entertain an
application under sub-section (1), unless
the Court finds that circumstances exist
which may not render the remedy provided
under section 17 efficacious.

9. The object of the said provision is to
invest power in the Court to order interim
measures,
before
or
during
arbitral
proceedings, or at any time after the making
of the arbitral award, but before it is enforced.
The interim measure could be in respect of
appointment of a guardian for the minor, or a
person of unsound mind; for protection,
preservation, interim custody or sale of any
goods which are subject matter of the
arbitration agreement; securing the amount in
dispute in the arbitration; the detention,
preservation or inspection of any property,
etc.; interim injunction or the appointment of
a receiver and such other interim measure or
protection as may appear to the Court to be
just and convenient.

10. The Court, while passing the
interim measures, has to first examine as
to whether there is an arbitral agreement
between the parties covering the subject
matter of dispute. The interim measure
should be of such nature as may preserve
the subject matter of the arbitration
agreement, or secure the amount, or the
property by such measure as may appear
to
be
just
and
convenient.
While
exercising power under Section 9, the
Court cannot decide the claim on merits,
or pass an order which has the effect of
decreeing the claim of one party or the
other. At best, the Court could issue a
direction to secure the amount that may
prima facie appear to be due or payable to
a party and for such purpose, it is vested
with power to issue necessary directions.
In the instant case, the court below has
entered into the merits and has held that
the deductions made by the appellant
were not permissible under the contract.
It has also proceeded to quantify the
amount said to be due and payable to the
respondent, despite specific plea that only
Rs. 3,16,363/- was due and was in
process of being paid. This, in our
considered opinion, could not have been
done.

11. The proceeding under Section 9 is
not a substitute to the adjudication that has
to be made by the arbitral tribunal. While
exercising limited power under Section 9,
the claim could not be decreed, as has been
done in the instant case. We feel that the
learned
Judge
has
completely
misunderstood the scope of Section 9 and
has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the
impugned order.

12. Sri Vivek Saran, at this stage,
states that payment of Rs. 3,16,363/- which
is admittedly due, if not already made, will
be made to the appellant within four weeks.
He further states that the appellant is ready
10 All. Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. Vs. State of U.P.
315
to furnish security to secure the interest of
the respondent.

13. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the impugned order is hereby
set aside, but with direction to the appellant
to make payment of Rs. 3,16,363/-, if not
already made (as undertaken by counsel for
the appellant) and furnish security (other
than cash or bank guarantee) in a sum of
Rs. 10 lakhs, before the court below, within
four weeks from today.

14. It is left open to the respondent to
initiate arbitral proceedings as per the
mandate of Section 9(2) of the Act.

15. In the result, the appeal succeeds
and is allowed.

16. The Registrar General shall call
for explanation from the Presiding Officer,
in relation to the manner in which the case
has been decided and place it before the
concerned
Administrative
Judge
for
consideration.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 315
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
299 of 2022

Dr. Rajeev Gupta M.D. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Purnendu Chakaravarty

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh
Civil Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988-Sections 109 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(e)-Applicant's
wife-government
Medical
practitioner-Sr.D.M.O.-
in
possession
of
disproportionate
assets-
Applicant-husbandabetted
the
possession
of
assets
disproportionate - F.I.R.-no tenable explanation
for the recovered amount.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sushila Aggarwal & ors. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr. reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1

2. P.S. Kirupanandhan Vs St., Cri. A. No. 381 of
2017 and Cri MP No. 8256 of 2017
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Dharmendra
Pratap
Singh,
Advocate
holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Criminal Case No.690 of 2021,
Crime
No.
RC0062019A0008,
under
Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act,
1988 and Section 109 IPC, Police Station
CBI/ACB, District Lucknow, with a prayer
to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

Brief Facts:-

3. The present case has been
registered on the basis of a written
complaint
by
Shri
Anmol
Sachan,
PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, dated 23/05/2019
against Dr. Sunita Gupta, the then Sr.
D.M.O.,
Northern
Railway
(N.R.),
Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow
and her husband Dr. Rajeev Gupta,
Professor, KGMU, Lucknow, U/s 109 IPC
& Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act,