Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, C.J., C.M. POONACHA
Volvo Financial Services (India) Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
S.S. Constructions – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act impugning an order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in IA No.3 in Com. A.A No.368/2025, captioned M/s Volvo Financial Services (India) Private Limited v. M/s. S S Constructions and another.
2. The respondents had filed the said application seeking vacation of the ex parte order dated 06.09.2025, whereby the learned Commercial Court had appointed a receiver to take possession of the schedule assets and hand over the same to the appellant company. It is material to note that the said order was passed ex parte.
3. The appellant had filed an application ‒ I.A No.2 before the Commercial Court claiming that it had sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,95,96,000/- to the respondents under various loan accounts. The respondents were liable to pay a sum of Rs.56,48,924/- towards the same, however, had failed to do so. It was alleged that the respondents were now selling their assets, which were hypothecated to the appellant. In view of the aforesaid contentions, on 06.
Full disclosure of material facts is essential for obtaining interim relief; unilateral appointment of arbitrators is unauthorized under arbitration agreements.
Interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allow arbitration tribunals to secure claims, especially under concerns of insolvency, as long as the actions align with just and convenien....
Inordinate delays in filing appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, emphasizing the need for expedient dispute resolution.
The arbitral tribunal has broad powers to issue interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring protection of claims during ongoing proceedings.
Arbitration awards, lacking jurisdiction, do not equate to money decrees; interim relief granted during appeal pending jurisdictional determinations.
The court's role in arbitration proceedings is limited, and interference with the arbitrator's decision is only warranted if the arbitrator's view is not reasonable or plausible.
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
The court emphasized the need to balance equities between the parties and highlighted the importance of following contractual provisions for submission of the final bill and processing thereof.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
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
