AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Bhansali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 04.10.2013 passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellant''s application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (''the Act'') has been rejected.
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation made a submission that the Corporation would not create any third party right regarding Retail Outlet site in question, inasmuch as, they would not appoint a new dealer for the retail outlet situated at Village Kakani, District Jodhpur. However, if the outlet is to operated, the same would be operated by the Company itself under arrangement in vogue.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the rights of the appellant to this extent are protected, the appellant would be satisfied.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and agreed to by learned counsel for the appellant, the order passed by the trial Court dt. 04.10.2013 is modified to the extent that during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings initiated by way of a notice dt. 30.09.2013 by the appellant, the respondent-Corporation shall not create third party interest in the said retail outlet situated at Village Kakani, District Jodhpur, whereby they would not appoint a dealer at the said site. In case, the Corporation decides to operate the said retail outlet, the same would be operated by the Company itself under arrangement in vogue.
It goes without saying that any observation made by the learned trial Court while deciding the ad-interim relief as well as final relief, while deciding the application under Sec. 9 of the Act shall not influence the decision of the arbitrator. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. The stay application is also disposed of.