Total Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs Aubergine Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Anthony Kunnel George and Mr. Paramesh

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This contempt petition is by the applicant in AA No. 7 of 2012 before the court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge at Bangalore [Bangalore Rural District] complaining that ex parte interim order dated 27.03.2012 came to be passed on an application u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short ''the Act''] read with Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC and it was to remain in force for a period of three months from the date of the order or until commencement of the arbitral proceedings whichever is earlier has been violated by the accused persons, particularly, first Accused by putting up certain construction inspite of the restraint order. Mr. Aditya Sondhi, learned counsel for the complainant has with reference to certain photographs produced to demonstrate the construction has drawn our attention to temporary compound wall that has been put up on the periphery of the property and grievance is that this has been done at the instance of the first accused person and by persons engaged by him etc.

Notice had been issued to the accused and accused Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. Suraj Govindaraj, learned counsel for M/s. Anup S. Shah Law Firm, Advocates and third accused is represented by Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel.

In the statement of objections, it is inter alia stated that the accused persons are not responsible for the construction; that the allegation that construction is put up at the behest of the accused persons is denied; that it was construction which was put up when the complainant itself was in possession of the property etc.

We also learn that the petition u/s 9 of the Act has been disposed of subsequently and the parties are before the Arbitrator.

While it may not be very appropriate or plausible to examine the fact as to who put up construction and at what point of time and at whose behest, in this contempt petition particularly in respect of an ex parte ad interim order passed by the trial court in a petition u/s 9 of the Act, more so when the main petition itself has been disposed of, we do not propose to proceed further to examine this matter in contempt jurisdiction. While this contempt petition is dismissed, it is open to the parties to move the matter before the Arbitrator for any direction if they so desire.