Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

VALVUE ARMATUREN V.U. BERATUNG GMBH AND CO. KG. versus NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. AND ORS.

Decided
27 July 1998
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 916

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Mr. Arun Jaitely, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment of this court in Dresser Rand, SA. v. KG. Khosla Compressors Ltd. & Ors., [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 181 and in particular, to paragraph 2, which reads thus:

p. 916, margin E

"2. In a matter of this nature where questions of amenability of a dispute to international arbitration arise it is not proper to let loose and keep at large orders of injunction 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 interdictiorJ.s. At any rate, the court must ensure that the 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 the respondent in Suit No. 3737/91, as early as in 29.11.1991 and is still in operation requires to be settled expeditiously. The issue has not been disposed of although almost sevea years have elapsed. In the nature of the dispute pending before the Court, issues relating to interlocutory interdictions need to be disposed of with utmost despatch.

pp. 916–917, margin E

While not being inclined to interfere with an order adjourning the decision of issue in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we, however, consider it appropriate to request the High Court to dispose of the issue concerning the vacation or otherwise of the injunction expeditiously and as far as possible before 31.12.1998.

p. 917, margin B

With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of. R.P. Petition disposed of.

p. 917, margin C