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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more