Skip to main content

Seeking Interim Measure Of Protection Maintainable Even After Passing Of Arbitration Award But Before It Is Enforced

In M.ASHRAF vs KASIM.V.K, the question before the Kerala High Court was whether seeking an interim measure of protection, maintainable before the Court, after passing of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal but before it is enforced.

The Court held that three sections of the Arbitration Act guides this matter. Section 9(1)(ii) provides that a party may at any time before the award is enforced, apply to a Court, for an interim measure of protection while Section 9(3) states that court can entertain an application under sub-section (1), only if remedy provided under Section 17 is not available and Section 17(1)(ii) provides that a party may at any time before the award is enforced, apply to the arbitral tribunal, for an interim measure of protection.

Holding that such an application is maintainable, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant interim relief does not automatically get barred on constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Exercise of power by the Court under Section 9(1) of the Act is contemplated at three stages : (1) before commencement  of arbitral proceedings (2) during arbitral proceedings and (3) at any time after passing of the arbitral award but before it is enforced.

When an application under Section 9(1) of the Act is made by a party at the third stage, the Court shall bear in mind that it is a stage where except in cases provided under Section 33 of the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal would have then ceased to function. The unsuccessful party may then take hasty steps to alienate or dispose of the property which was the subject matter of dispute. The successful party may then approach the Court with an application under Section 9(1) of the Act for granting interim relief. In such circumstances, it would not be proper for the Court to reject the application merely on the ground that he has got efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act. The Court has to adopt a liberal approach in such circumstances. The Arbitral Tribunal may not be then actually functioning. It may also be possible that the Arbitrator is not readily available. When an application at the third, the Court has to consider all these circumstances.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more