Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2390 of 2019 Appellant :- Mahendra Goel Respondent :- Vipin Kumar Goel And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajkumar, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") has arisen from judgment and order dated 30.5.2019 passed by District Judge, Hapur on an application under Section 9(1) and (2) of the said Act allowing it partly and granting interim injunction directing both the parties not to raise any construction on the disputed premises, not to damage and also not to alienate the same to third party.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that despite the fact that partnership has been dissolved, respondents still are continuing to run the Banquet Hall and thus the same should also be stopped.
4. When questioned as to how balance of convenience and irreparable loss shall be adjusted, inasmuch as, in case appellant loses the matter then how loss suffered by respondents shall be compensated by appellant though if respondents continue to run banquet hall, any benefit held by respondents can always be claimed by appellant to the extent of share in the partnership deed, no reply at all could be given.
- 2 -
5. We, therefore, find that Court below has rightly held that there is no probability of causing irreparable loss to appellant in refusing interim injunction with regard to running of Banquet Hall during pendency of the matter.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 KA