Full Judgment Text
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3651-3653 OF 2022
ARISING OUT OF
PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.6449-6451 OF 2022
DALPAT SINGH NARUKA & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
Versus
KARUNA BANSAL & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
1.
1.1 The present appeals by way of special leave are directed against
th th th
three interim orders dated 24 February, 2022, 11 March, 2022 and 29
March, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan,
Jaipur Bench in appeals preferred by the respondents under Section 37 of
1
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , being aggrieved by an order
th
dated 11 February 2021 passed by the Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur-II
dismissing an application for interim relief filed by the respondents under
Section 9 of the 1996 Act.
th
2. On 26 February, 2021, while issuing notice in the appeal
preferred by the respondents and summoning the records of the
Commercial Court, the appellants herein were restrained by the High Court
Signature Not Verified
from alienating the property described as “Hotel Grand Uniara”, subject
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2022.05.10
11:45:38 IST
Reason:
1 in short ‘1996 Act’
Page 1 of 6
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
th
matter of dispute between the parties. Vide order dated 13 August, 2021,
the High Court directed the appellants to produce the original stamp papers
on which a Supplementary Partnership Deed had allegedly been executed
by them in view of the plea taken by the respondents that the said Deed
had been antedated to deprive them of their rights over the subject
th
property. One day before 13 August, 2021, on the complaint of the
respondent No.3 relating to the aforementioned Supplementary Partnership
Deed, FIR No.293/2021 was registered against the appellants and some
others at PS Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
3. It is not in dispute that the investigation in respect of FIR 293/2021
was subsequently transferred to the CID-CB and the Additional Director
General of Police, Crime Branch has constituted a Special Investigating
Team (SIT) to investigate FIR No.211/2019, registered against the
respondents on the complaint of the appellants as well as FIR
No.293/2021.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that when the appellant No.1 had filed an application before the High Court
to bring on record the original stamp papers on which the Supplementary
Partnership Deed had been executed along with an affidavit, by the first
th
impugned order dated 24 February, 2022, the High Court directed the
investigating agency to file a status report pertaining to FIR No.293/2021
Page 2 of 6
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
and produce the case diary of the said FIR for its perusal. By the second
th
impugned order dated 11 March, 2022, upon perusing the status report
and the case diary produced before it, the High Court summoned the
Investigating Officer on the next date of hearing. By the third impugned
th
order passed on 29 March, 2022, opining that investigation in FIR
No.293/2021 was not being conducted in a fair and impartial manner, the
High Court has directed that said FIR be transferred to the Special
Operation Group (SOG), Jaipur with a further direction that the said
investigation shall be supervised by an Officer of the rank of
Superintendent of Police, who has been called upon to submit a report
within three weeks.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the aforesaid
impugned orders travel far beyond the scope and parameters of
interference, contemplated under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. All that was
required of the High Court to examine in the said proceedings is the order
th
dated 11 February, 2021, passed by the Commercial Court, rejecting the
Section 9 application for interim relief moved by the respondents under the
1996 Act. He states that within one week of preferring the appeal under
Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the respondents had approached the learned
Sole Arbitrator appointed by the High Court in a Section 11 petition filed by
them and had filed an application under Section 17 for seeking interim
Page 3 of 6
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
relief, thus rendering the appeal preferred by them under Section 37, as
infructuous. It is thus contended that the High Court has acted in excess of
its jurisdiction by passing the impugned orders and has virtually taken over
the task of supervising the criminal investigation subject matter of FIR
No.213/2021, registered on the complaint of the respondents, thereby
seriously prejudicing the rights of the appellants.
6. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the respondents has stoutly defended the impugned interim orders. He
submits that the appellants have left no stone unturned to oust the
respondents from the business under the Partnership Deed constituted on
rd
3 January, 2008 though substantial monetary investment has been made
by them besides the hard work and efforts put in by them to develop the
hotel business.
7. On hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and carefully perusing the records, we are of the firm view that by
passing the impugned orders, the High Court has acted in excess of the
limited jurisdiction vested in it under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. The scope
of the appeal preferred by the respondents under Section 37 of the 1996
th
Act ought to be confined to examining the merits of the order dated 11
February, 2021, passed by the Commercial Court that has refused to grant
any interim measures in favour of the respondents on the application
Page 4 of 6
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
moved by them under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. However, it appears that
the respondents have managed to take appeal proceedings on an entirely
different trajectory. As a result, the Appellate Court is conducting a roving
and fishing inquiry relating to the manner in which investigation is being
conducted in respect of FIR No.293/2021 registered at the instance of the
respondents, to the point that not only has a status report and the case
diary been called for, the Investigating Officer has also been summoned
and subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to the Special
Operation Group, Jaipur.
8. We are afraid, none of the three impugned orders could have
been passed by the Appellate Court in proceedings arising from an order
passed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. If the respondents have any
grievance regarding the unfair or partial manner of the investigation
conducted in respect of the FIR registered on their complaint, it is for them
to seek appropriate legal recourse before the competent court on the
criminal side. However, the proceedings initiated by the respondents under
Section 37 of the 1996 Act can certainly not be permitted to be misused
and virtually highjacked towards this end.
th
9. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 24
th th
February, 2022, 11 March, 2022 and 29 March, 2022 are not sustainable
and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The High Court is requested
Page 5 of 6
SLP(C) No.6449-6451 of 2022
to decide D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.431/2021 preferred by the
respondents strictly in accordance with law and well within the parameters
contemplated under Section 37 of the 1996 Act. It is, however, clarified that
th
this Court has not interfered with or overturned the interim order dated 26
February, 2021, passed by the High Court in the above proceedings,
restraining the appellants herein from alienating the subject property.
10. The appeals are allowed and disposed of, along with pending
applications, in the above terms, while leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
................................. CJI.
[N. V. RAMANA]
.................................. .J.
[KRISHNA MURARI]
................................... J.
[HIMA KOHLI]
New Delhi,
April 21, 2022.
Page 6 of 6