http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: VALVUE ARMATUREN V.U. BERATUNG GMBH&CO KG

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/07/1998

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: (with Appln  (s). for  exemption  from  filing  c/c  of  the imnpugned Judgment) Date: 27/07/98  This Petition  was  called  on  for  hearing today. SORAM:      Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand      Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa For Petitioner (s)      Mr. Arun Jaitely, Sr. adv.,      Mr. Gpal Jain Adv.,      Mr.R.N. Karanjawala, adv.,      Ms. Nandini Gre, Ms. Seema Sapra,      Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, adv., For Respondent (s)      Upon hearing counsel the Court made the following                          O R D E R      Mr. Arun  Jaitely, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner  has drawn  our attention  to a  judgement of this court in Dresser Rand, S.A. Vs. K.G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. &  Ors (1995  Supp. (3)  SCC 181) and in particular, to paragraph 2, which reads thus:      "2. In  a  matter  of  this  nature      where question  of amenability of a      dispute to internatinal arbitration      arise it is not proper to let loose      and  keep   at  large   orders   of      injuction of  this kind  for unduly      long periods.  It  is  inconsistent      with   the   principles   governing      international arbitration. It is of      utmost importance  for the domestic      courts   to   be   circumspect   in      granting     such     interlocutory      interdictions.  At  any  rate,  the      court  must   ensure  that   the  a      matters are dealt with and disposed      of with utmost despatch. "      After hearing  Mr. Jaitely  and perusing the record, we are of  the opinion  that the issue relating to the vacation or continuance of the stay order, which had been obtained by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the respondent in Suit N. 3737/91, as early as in 29.11.1991 and  is   still  in   peratin   requires   to   be   settled expeditiously. The  issue has  not been disposed of although almost seven  years have  elapsed.  In  the  nature  of  the dispute  pending   before  the   Court,  issue  relating  to interlocutory interdictions  need to  be  disposed  of  with utmost despatch.      While not  being inclined  to interfere  with an  order adjourning  the   decisin  of   issue  in  excersie  of  our jurisdication under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of India, we,  however, consider  it appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the issue concering the vacation or otherwise of  the injunction  expeditiously and  as  far  as possible before 31.12.1998.      With these  observatins, the  special leave petition is disposed of.