FAO No.4129 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4129 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.08.2010 **** M/s Vinko Auto Industries Limited. . . . . Appellant VS. Transport Commissioner, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) On 21.8.2009, following order was passed by this Court: “learned counsel for the appellant states that in view of the dispute, the Arbitration Clause was invoked and a request for an appointment of Arbitrator was made vide their letters dated 19.1.2009 and 03.02.2009 and again on 16.02.2009 (Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-5, respectively). In spite of the same, the Arbitrator was not appointed. Accordingly, they were forced to file petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court for appointment of an independent Arbitrator. Notice of motion FAO No.4129 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - has been issued in that case. The respondents have already filed their written statement and the matter is now fixed for 05.09.2009. Thus, great injustice would occur, if the bank guarantee is encashed at this stage. Notice of motion for 14.10.2009. Meantime, the respondents are restrained from encashing the bank guarantee till the next date of hearing subject to the appellant keeping the bank guarantee alive.” Learned counsel for the appellant informs the Court that in terms of application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) Arbitrator has been appointed and the date fixed for hearing before him is 17.8.2010. He submits that he would file application for seeking interim measures under Section 17 of the Act, on 17.8.2010. He further prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal but till the time his application, which is to be filed on 17.8.2010 before the Arbitrator, is decided by him, the interim order granted by this Court may be allowed to continue. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn as prayed for. The interim order is allowed to continue till application under Section 17 of the Act is decided by the Arbitrator. It is, however, made clear that if the application under Section 17 of the Act is not filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator on 17.8.2010 for the purpose of seeking interim measure, interim order granted by this Court shall be automatically vacated. Copy dasti. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 09, 2010 JUDGE FAO No.4129 of 2009 (O&M) - 3 - Vivek