IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7270 OF 2009 (@  S.L.P.(C)No.22053/2009)

NICCO CORP.LTD.                     Appellant  

                VERSUS

PRYSMIAN CAVIE SISTEMI ENERGIA S.R.L & ANR.          Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This  appeal  is  directed  

against the order dated 29th July, 2009 of the  

Division  Bench  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court  

whereby it vacated the interim order passed by  

the  learned Single  Judge in  G.A. No.678  of  

2009 in C.S. No.69 of 2009.   

We  have  heard  learned  Senior  

Counsel appearing for the parties at length  

and perused the records.  We find even though  

the  Division  Bench  did  notice  the  plea  of  

respondent no.1 that the Frame Agreement has  

1

been superseded or novated on 8th October, 2008  

and such agreement of novation has again been  

superseded on 4th December, 2008, and as such  

there is no arbitration agreement subsisting  

between  the  parties,  but  without  deciding  

whether said plea is tenable,  vacated  the  

ad interim injunction granted by the learned  

Single Judge apparently because it was of the  

view that in such matter the Court does not  

have jurisdiction to stand in the way of any  

arbitration  proceeding  held  outside  India.  

The Division  Bench then directed the parties  

to file affidavits and requested the learned  

Single  Judge  to  decide  the  injunction  

application at the earliest.

In  our  view,  the  Division  

Bench should have examined the entire issue in  

the light of the pleadings of the parties and  

documents  produced  by  them  and  then  decide  

whether  the ad  interim order  passed by  the  

2

learned Single Judge deserves to be continued  

or vacated.   

We  are  further  of  the  view  

that  ends  of  justice  will  be  met  and  the  

litigation will be shortened if the Division  

Bench is requested to decide the injunction  

application  filed  by  the  appellant  in  its  

entirety  in the  light of  the pleadings  and  

documents of the parties.

In the result, the appeal is  

allowed,  the  impugned  order  is  set  aside.  

Respondent no.1 is directed to file reply to  

the  injunction  application  along  with  

documents within a period of two weeks from  

today.   Further  affidavit  and  documents  on  

behalf of the appellant herein may be filed  

within the next two weeks.  The Division Bench  

of the High Court is requested to dispose of  

the injunction application itself within eight  

3

weeks thereafter without being influenced by  

the observations, if any, made in the impugned  

order.    

The  interim  order,  which  was  

granted by this Court while issuing notice,  

shall continue for a further period of three  

months or till the disposal of the injunction  

application by the Division Bench of the High  

Court, whichever is earlier.  We make it clear  

that it would be open for the parties to move  

this  Court for  an appropriate  order in  the  

event  the  injunction  application  is  not  

decided within the time specified by us herein  

above.

.......................J. (TARUN CHATTERJEE)        

.......................J.

4

(G.S. SINGHVI)            

.......................J. NEW DELHI              (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)        OCTOBER 29, 2009

5