Gujarat High Court High Court

Dr vs Ilaben on 6 October, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dr vs Ilaben on 6 October, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

FA/236/2010	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 236 of 2010
 

 


 

For
Approval and Signature:  
 


 

HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

=========================================================


 

DR
ANIMESH BANSILAL CHOKSI - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

ILABEN
MUKESHBHAI PATEL - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
TARAK DAMANI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Defendant(s) : 1, 
MR ANSHIN H DESAI
for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 06/10/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present appeal is directed under section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by
City Civil Court in Civil Misc. Application No.1201/09, whereby the
interim injunction has been granted restraining the opponents
therein from transferring or disposing the property.

The
short facts of the case appears to be that based on the arbitration
award passed on 17.01.2009 by the sole arbitrator, the proceedings
were initiated before the City Civil Court. In the said
proceedings, the application has been submitted for interim measure.
The City Civil Court in the impugned order has found that the amount
for which the claim has been made deserves to be protected and
therefore, has granted interim injunction restraining the disposal
of Bunglow No.5 of Kameshwar Twins, Near Manekbaug Octroi Naka Check
Post, Shreyas Tekra, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad till the final disposal of
Civil Misc. Application. However, the Court did not grant
injunction against the other properties of the opponent. Being
aggrieved with that part of the order so far as declining injunction
qua other properties of the opponent, the original applicant has
preferred the present appeal before this Court.

We
have heard Mr.Damani for the appellant and Mr.Desai for the
respondents.

It
appears to us that when the interest of the appellant is
sufficiently protected by one property, the learned City Civil Judge
has rightly declined the injunction against other properties. It
may be recorded that the award is for Rs.40,91,737/- with the
interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.37,71,652.31 from the date
of the suit being Civil Suit No.3473/98 till the payment of the
awarded amount.

It
was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant during the
course of the hearing that the the total amount with the accumulated
interest would come to Rs.1.50 Crore.

Even
if such submission is considered for the sake of examination, it
appears from the valuation report produced by the opponent of the
property in question, that the valuation is of Rs.1,71,35,000/-.
Therefore, when the interest is sufficiently protected by the
impugned order passed by the Court below, it cannot be said that any
error has been committed in declining the injunction qua the
property of the respondent-original opponent.

No
other contention has been raised. In the result, the appeal is
meritless. Therefore, dismissed.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(H.B.

ANTANI, J.)

*bjoy

   

Top