Skip to main content

Hearing for interim relief heard by court even after constitution of Arbitral Tribunal

Cause Title : Jaya Industries Vs. Mother Dairy Calcutta & Anr., AP 85 of 2023, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 20.07.2023

Corum : Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

Citied: Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Limited; (2022) 1 SCC 712

Background

After filing of the application on 10th February, 2023, a Co-ordinate Bench passed an order on 15th March, 2023 directing the respondents to show-cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,95,40,498.60/-. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties and recorded in the orders passed by the Court on 10th April, 2023, 1st May, 2023 and 14th June, 2023. 

The petitioner has filed the present application for interim relief under section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner wants this Court to continue to hear the petition for interim relief while counsel appearing for the respondents relies on section 9(3) of the Act to put emphasis on the bar on the Court from entertaining an application under section 9(1) of the Act subject to the efficacy of the remedy under section 17 before the arbitral tribunal.

Judgment

The High Court observed that Section 9(1) permits a party before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award but before enforcement of the award to apply to a Court for interim measures while Section 9(3) puts certain conditionality to the relief under Section 9(1) and states that the Court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1) once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under section 17 efficacious.

The Supreme Court in Arcelor Mittal (supra) considered the expression “entertain” and held that if the Court had already applied its mind to the issues raised, then the Court can proceed to adjudicate the application under section 9(1) notwithstanding the bar of section 9(3).

In light of the dictum in Arcelor Mittal, the Court has to determine whether the present application can continue to be entertained despite the arbitral tribunal being constituted on 17th May, 2023. This would depend on whether the Court has applied its mind to the present application which is required to circumvent the mandate of section 9(3) of the Act.

Section 9(3) aims to prevent multiple levels of hearing for the same relief. The section envisages a clockwise motion of considerations of the matter after an arbitral tribunal has been constituted. The hands of the clock however stop to tick where the Court has already gone into the matter. Permitting the parties to re-agitate the matter in such cases before the arbitral tribunal would in effect rewind the clock which is not what section 9(3) intends.

This Court is of the view that the Court has already entertained the matter and thought it fit to direct affidavits to consider the dispute further. This, hence, is certainly a case where the Court has applied its mind to the matter and consequently “entertained” the application filed by the petitioner. The process of consideration has indeed commenced and the subsequent constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal will not act as a fetter on the Court to continue hearing the application.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more