Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A. S. CHANDURKAR, RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
Ebix Cash World Money Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Goel, Top Floor, Times Tower – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.
1.Admit. Both the Commercial Arbitration Appeals are taken up for final disposal.
2. The challenge raised in these appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) is to the judgment dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. By the said judgment, the Commercial Arbitration Petition preferred by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed and interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (b), (e) and (f) have been granted. As a result, the appellants have been directed to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee of nationalized bank or any such other security in favour of the Prothonary, Bombay High Court, for a sum of Rs.145 crores being 80 percent of the Enhanced Call Price redeemable by the respondent nos. 1 to 3. The appellants have also been injuncted from dealing and/or encumbering and/or disposing off and/or creating third party rights and/or alienating any of the movable or immovable properties or assets owned by them. The appellants have also been directed to disclose all their assets on oath including providing f
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interim injunction – Jurisdiction under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not an adjudicatory substitute for final determination of rights, but a supportive mechanism to facilit....
The court reinforced that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to invalid proceedings, hence, a new arbitrator must be appointed.
Orders granting or refusing ex-parte interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are appealable under Section 37, despite the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
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
