IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
Ashok Kumar Goel - Appellant
Versus .
Ebix Cash Limited & Ors - Respondents
Civil Jurisdiction In Its Commercial Division Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25579 of 2024
Decided on : 08-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Per Arif S. Doctor, J) :
1. The captioned Commercial Arbitration Petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) in which the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
B. In the alternative, direct Respondents Nos. 1-3 to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee of a nationalized bank, or such other security, in favour of the Prothonotary, Hon'ble Bombay High Court for the sum of INR 145 crore, being 80% the Enhanced Call Price redeemable by the Petitioners upon the issuance of the final award by the arbitral tribunal in SIAC Arbitration No. 80 of 2024 and up to the total sum of any amounts which the tribunal orders the Respondents to pay to the Petitioners;
C. In furtherance of Relief A and B, Order appointment of a Court Receiver or such other person as this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate as Court Receiver, to do all such things including to take possession and control of all the immovable and movable properties, present and future (including general fees, income, rent, revenues, interest, other income, receivables, profits, etc.) of the Respondents including their equity interests in Schedule A and other properties disclosed by the Respondents with full powers under Section 94 and Order XL Rule I of the Code including the power to call for/demand, recover, take possession thereof and to sell the same by public auction or by private treaty and to deposit all receivables/sale proceeds in a separate account to be opened and operated by the Court Receiver to be utilized as a deposit or used as a collateral to procure a bank guarantee to the extent of INR 145 in terms of the directors passed by this Hon'ble Court;
D. In the further alternative, attach all saleable and unsecured assets owned by Respondents Nos. 1-3 or over which Respondents Nos. l-3 exercise a disposing power, whether such assets are movable, immovable, tangible, intangible, including but not limited to securities, bank accounts, investments, valuables etc. upto the value of INR 145 crore;
E. Pass an Order of injunction restraining Respondents Nos. l-3 from, in any manner dealing with, and/or encumbering and/or disposing off, dissipating, and/or creating third party rights and/or alienating any of the moveable or immoveable properties or assets owned or belonging to Respondents Nos. l -3, including the assets listed in Schedule A hereto, standing in the name of Respondents Nos.1-3 or over which Respondents Nos. 1-3 exercise any disposing power;
F. Direct the Respondents to disclose all their assets on oath, including providing further and better particulars as to the movable and immovable properties, along with details of all the Respondents' bank accounts and the monies lying therein, receivables, shares held in any companies and any other interests in any other entity including financial statements and list of all assets of such entities, government securities, bonds, mutual funds or other securities for money, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, properties, valuables, whether tangible or intangible or all other saleable moveable and immovable properties belonging to the Respondents or over the profits of which the Respondents have a disposing power which they may exercise for their own benefit whether the same may be held in the name of the Respondents or held by another person in trust for them or on their behalf;
G. Grant ex-parte ad interim reliefs in terms of prayers (E) and (F) above.”
2. Before, however, adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to set out the following facts to give context to the rival con
PASL Wind Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 1
Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC Vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors.
The Emergency Arbitrator's decision is binding and enforceable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing party autonomy and the need for compliance with interim orders.
The court upheld the validity of interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural rules is not mandatory if a prima facie case exists.
Unsuccessful party may invoke post-award Section 9 for interim measures like bank guarantee extension in rare compelling cases meeting higher threshold, preserving disputed amounts pending Section 34....
The court clarified that without an explicit agreement to exclude Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, its applicability cannot be assumed, allowing claims under Section 9 for interim relief despite ong....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court applied the principles of strong prima facie case and weighing the balance of convenience in favor of the respondent company in gran....
Expression “entertain” means to consider by application of mind to the issues raised. The Court entertains a case when it takes a matter up for consideration. The process of consideration could conti....
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.