AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 226 wordsFAO(OS)85/99 & CM. 1022/99
Despite two opportunities learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to substantiate the main ground on which appeal has been preferred that once proceedings in the suit are stayed u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court thereafter cannot pass an order on interim application. We may refer to a decision on the point in Vashdev Bheroomal Pamnai Vs. M. Bipinkumar and Co., , holding that while staying the suit proceedings u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, the court must hear the parties for passing final orders on application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned Single Judge rightly proceeded in the matter of simultaneously disposing of application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
No ground otherwise has been made out to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge by which he proceeded to vacate the ex-parte order of injunction which had been granted earlier on 17th November, 1993. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the appellants application for grant of injunction on the ground that despite having come to know of the existence of deed of dissolution-cum-partnership in the year 1993, the appellants had failed to challenge the validity of the said dissolution-cum-partnership deed dated 1st August, 1985 under which the property in question fell to the share of the defendant-respondent and her son Jawahar Singh.