Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ITW Consulting Private Limited, Represented By Its Director Kumar Manoj S. – Appellant
Versus
Intellicomm Solutions And Enterprises Private Limited, Represented By Its Director Shaik Khais Ahmed – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.
This appeal is filed under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-88 Commercial Court), Bengaluru, in Com.A.P.No.53/2022.
2. Sri.Lakshmikantha K.B., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent is before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that the appellant has filed a claim petition wherein the respondent has filed objections stating that Mr.Mohammad Shoaib is not authorized to execute the agreements on behalf of the respondent- Company. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator considered the said objections and has framed the preliminary issue and answered the said issue in favour of the claimant. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an application for setting aside the order. It is also submitted that the Commercial Court, under the impugned order allowed the application by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2022. It is contended that the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is not
An arbitrator's preliminary order determining a factual issue does not qualify as an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, thus is not appealable in this context.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly regarding the filing of Section 34 applications during the pendency o....
Not every procedural order by an Arbitral Tribunal constitutes an interim award; only orders that finally adjudicate substantive disputes qualify for challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and....
Interim awards may be issued by arbitral tribunals, and reliance on evaluation reports constitutes admissible evidence binding on parties, restricting challenges based on liability admissions.
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against an interim award is maintainable where the order determines rights or forecloses a party's defense.
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
An order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration Act is procedural and not an interim award amenable to challenge under Section 34.
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
