Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, NEELA GOKHALE
Central Depositories Services (India) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ketan Lalit Shah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :-
Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the parties, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing forthwith.
2) The Petitioner assails order dated 18th April 2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in Arbitration Case Nos.3 to 9 of 2023, wherein claims filed by individual Respondents in all the Petitions herein, against the present Petitioner were ‘dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh’. The issue in all the Writ Petitions is identical and hence, all the Petitions are being disposed off with this common judgment and order with Writ Petition (L) No.15131 of 2024 being taken as the lead Petition.
3) The Petitioner and the Respondents were parties in their respective disputes referred to arbitration. The following questions arise for determination:
(a) Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
(b) If yes, whether the Arbitral Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') can permit withdrawal of a claim with liberty to file a fresh claim?
4) The brief facts l
The Arbitral Tribunal cannot grant liberty to file fresh claims after withdrawal, as it exceeds its jurisdiction and renders it functus officio.
Section 12 sets out grounds of challenge to person appointed as arbitrator and duty of an arbitrator appointed, to disclose any disqualification he may have.
Judicial interference in arbitration proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to exceptional circumstances, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards and the need to minimize court involvement....
Once arbitration has commenced in the arbitral tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the limitations on judicial interference in ar....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the arbitrator's duty to inform the claimant of their failure to communicate their claim and to provide an opportunity to show sufficient cause, an....
Judicial interference under Article 227 is limited in arbitration matters, especially when a comprehensive mechanism exists under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for addressing non-arbitrability....
The Arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider recall of a termination order if sufficient cause is shown for non-filing of claims, reinforcing judicial support for arbitral processes. The defaulting pa....
Point of law: Drill of Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that where a Section 16 application is dismissed, no appeal is provided and the challenge to the Section 16 applicat....
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
