FAO No.190/2009 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.190/2009 & C.M. No.16559/2009 Date of Decision: February 04, 2010 KULBHUSHAN SAINI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharti, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate versus THE INDUS IND BANK LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The respondent before me had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of an Additional District Judge which resulted in an order dated January 07, 2008. By virtue of the said order, one Neeraj was appointed as Receiver to take possession of the vehicle make TATA bearing registration No.HR-42D-0179. After the passing of order dated January 07, 2008 the arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. The appellant FAO No.190/2009 Page 2 of 3 failed to appear before the arbitrator and that led to the passing of an ex-parte award against him. However, before the appointment of the arbitrator, the appellant had filed a writ-petition bearing No.4643 of 2008 and therein he had prayed that the vehicle of which the possession had been taken pursuant to the order dated January 07, 2008 be not sold. This Court by an order dated September 12, 2008 disposed of the writ-petition giving liberty to the appellant to take appropriate steps in the petition which is pending before the trial Court. In view of this order, the appellant moved an application under Sections 2 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the order passed under Section 9 of the Act dated January 07, 2008 was obtained by manipulating books of accounts. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application by an order dated April 30, 2009 and by the same order, also disposed of the main suit under Section 9 of the Act. It is this order of April 30, 2009 which has been assailed by way of present appeal. The operative part of the order runs as under:- “x x x x x x This is an application in which respondent has moved a contempt application which no more exist in view of the award already passed in the present case. The respondent is free to take appropriate steps against the decree in the form of an award passed against him and since no more prayer‟s is there on behalf of the petitioner in this petition, the said application of the respondent as well as petition are disposed in terms of award already passed. File be consigned to record room. Sd/- ADJ, Delhi.” FAO No.190/2009 Page 3 of 3 Any order passed under Section 9 of the Act is in the nature of an interim relief. Such an order if passed shall last only till the award is passed. Hence, in this case, consequent upon the arbitrator giving his award, the order passed under Section 9 of the Act came to an end. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed as such. However, the appellant if he feels aggrieved by the award shall be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings as per law. REKHA SHARMA, J. FEBRUARY 04, 2010 PC/ka