Back
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL
Dani Wooltex Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Sheil Properties Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal, the issue involved is about the legality and validity of the order of termination of the arbitral proceedings under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Arbitration Act’) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
3. A brief reference to the factual aspects will be necessary to appreciate the issue. The first appellant, Dani Wooltex Corporation, is a partnership firm that owned certain land in Mumbai. The first respondent, Sheil Properties (for short, ‘Sheil’), a private limited company, was engaged in real estate development. The second respondent, Marico Industries (for short, ‘Marico’), is also a limited company in the consumer goods business. A part of the first appellant's property was permitted to be developed by Sheil under the Development Agreement dated 11th August 1993 (for short, ‘the Agreement’). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed by and between the first appellant and Marico, by which the first appellant agreed to sell another portion of its property to Marico. Under the MOU, Marico was given the benefit of a certain quantity of FSI/TDR. Marico is
Termination of arbitral proceedings – Arbitrator is empowered to withdraw from his office, which terminates his mandate – However, arbitral proceedings continue by Arbitrator's substitution – Mere ab....
The unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is invalid, and parties retain the right to seek an independent substitute Arbitrator for unresolved counter-claims following termination of arbitral proce....
An order terminating arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the A&C Act is not an award and can be challenged under Section 14(2) of the A&C Act. Delay in appointing an arbitrator may warrant....
An order terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not equivalent to an arbitral award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of....
The court determined that once arbitration proceedings commence, they cannot be closed due to technical non-compliance with timelines, emphasizing the right to a just resolution under the Arbitration....
Termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) requires demonstrable impossibility; mere overlapping issues in parallel civil proceedings do not suffice.
The court affirmed that termination of arbitral proceedings does not permit the appointment of a substitute arbitrator without reviving prior termination, emphasizing procedural adherence in arbitrat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
