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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more