IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (APPELLATE DIVISION)
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 622 of 1999
Decided On: 25.07.1999
Appellants: Saipem S.P.A.
Vs.
Respondent: Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (Petro-Bangla)
Hon’ble Judges:Mustafa Kamal, C.J., Bimalendu Bikash Roy Chowdhury and A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate and M.A. Samad, Advocate instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record
For Respondents/Defendant: Rokanuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate instructed by A.K.M. Shahidul Huq, Advocate-on-Recorded
Subject: Banking
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
*Acts/Rules/Orders:*Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rule 2; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 151
Prior History:
From the Judgment and Order dated May 2, 1999 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka in F.M.A. No. 252 of 1997 with Civil Rule No. 399 (FM) of 1997
Disposition:
Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT
Mustafa Kamal, C.J.
-
In view of the order that we propose to pass in this matter after hearing most exhaustively both the learned Advocates for the petitioner and Caveator-respondent we need not recount the facts of the case or the arguments advanced.
-
Suffice it to say that the respondent as petitioner filed arbitration Misc. Case No. 49 of 1997 in the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka under section 5 of the arbitration Act, 1940 praying for an order to revoke the authority of the Arbitral Tribunal making various allegations against the Tribunal. The respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 read with section 151 of the C.P.C. and the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated November 16, 1997 asked the petitioner to show cause within 7 days of the receipt of the notice as to why it will not be restrained as prayed for till hearing and disposal of the temporary injunction matter. The trial Court refused the prayer for ad-interim injunction by order dated 16.11.97. The respondent preferred First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 252 of 1997 before the High Court Division against the order refusing the prayer for ad-interim injunction. During admission of the said First Misc. Appeal the respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 C.P.C. On 24.11.97 the High Court Division issued a Rule and granted an ad-interim order staying further proceeding in the ICC arbitration Case No. 7934/CK for a period of 8 weeks.
-
Ultimately the High Court Division after hearing the respondent and the petitioner by judgment and order dated 2.5.99 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.11.97 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and also issued an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the said ICC arbitration case.
-
The aforesaid order is being challenged in this petition for leave to appeal by the defendant-petitioner.
-
The High Court Division ultimately directed the learned Subordinate Judge to dispose of arbitration Misc. Case No. 7934/CK by 15 August, 1999 without fail and also directed that the learned Judge should not grant any adjournment to either side on any ground whatsoever.
-
After hearing both sides and upon hearing Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq. learned Counsel for the petitioner, who specifically obtained instructions from the petitioner with regard to the proposed order that we intend to pass, we think that the interest of justice will be served if the order of temporary injunction passed by the High Court Division is not disturbed and if the said arbitration case itself is disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge by 30 November, 1999 without Jail and without granting any adjournment to either side on any ground whatsoever. All observations of the High Court Division on the merit of each party’s case shall not be taken into account by the trial Court.
-
The petition is accordingly disposed of.