CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2012 › M/S Dolphin International Ltd. v. M/S V.o.tyazhpromexport

M/S Dolphin International Ltd. v. M/S V.o.tyazhpromexport

Supreme Court of India · 21 September 2012

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
21 September 2012
Case no.
C.A. No. 6888 of 2012
Bench
Surinder Singh Nijjar, H.L. Gokhale
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6888 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.29641/2008)

M/S. DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD. Appellant(s) :VERSUS:

M/S. V.O. TYAZHPROMEXPORT Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It has been submitted by Mr. Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that pursuant to the direction of this Court passed on 15.12.2009, 50% of the amount has already been deposited with the Registry of this Court and the remaining 50% amount, as claimed, has been secured by a Bank Guarantee of Canara Bank in favour of the Secretary General of this Court. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered

JUDGMENT

opinion that necessary orders are required to be passed by the Company Court relegating the parties to the remedy of civil suit/arbitration/mediation or any other remedy available to them in law.

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the Company Court is requested to pass necessary consequential orders as expeditiously as possible.

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this appeal is disposed of.

.....................J
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

.....................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi;
September 21, 2012.

Ask CaseMinister about M/S Dolphin International Ltd. v. M/S V.o.tyazhpromexport

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp