Back
MANISH PITALE
Ramchandra Udaysinh Jadhavrao – Appellant
Versus
Girishnavnathrao Avhad – Respondent
ORDER :
The present appeal raises a question as regards remedy available to the appellant herein, in respect of an order dated 09.01.2014 passed by a sole arbitrator, for the reason that by the impugned judgement and order, the District Court has held that an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the appellant was not maintainable. Since the District Court rendered a finding that the application under Section 34 of the said Act itself was not maintainable, there was no discussion on the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the arbitrator.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have made submissions with regard to the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the said Act, in the backdrop of the aspect of termination of arbitral proceedings under Section 32 thereof, with particular reference to the concept of termination of mandate of the arbitrator touching upon Sections 14 and 15 of the said Act. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to various judgements in the said context pertaining to termination of the mandate of an arbitrator, as opposed to the termination of the arbitral proceedings themselves, which has be
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....
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....
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
The challenge for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 13 of the Act can only be made along with the final award under Section 34.
An order under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act does not constitute an arbitral award and is not subject to challenge under Section 34.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the 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 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
