Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE
In the Matter Between : Neelkanth Mansions and Infrastructure Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintaining arbitration proceedings under the arbitration act. (Para 2) |
| 2. the distinction between an order and an award. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. maintenance of ongoing arbitration despite challenges. (Para 10 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. dismissal of petition as not maintainable. (Para 22 , 24) |
Order :
1. The respondent No.1 (original claimant) has filed this application for deciding a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of arbitration petition filed under Sections 14, 15 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”), with a further prayer for accepting the preliminary objection and dismissing the arbitration petition as not maintainable.
3. Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent No.1) submitted that Section 32 of the Arbitration Act specifies the scenarios in which arbitration proceedings terminate and the said provision makes a clear distinction between an “Award” and an “Order”. By emphasizing upon the contents of sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, the aforementioned distinction was highlighted and it was submitted that in the present case, the pet
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.
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....
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....
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.
An order rejecting an amendment to a statement of claim is not an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it does not determine substantive issues or rights in the arbitration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between jurisdictional issues and decisions on the merits of the dispute under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
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.
Arbitration and Conciliation - Tender - Setting aside of Award - Context of not allowing new or fresh challenge after period of limitation does not mean that under Act, there are multiple petitions u....
The right to prefer an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises only when an order sets aside or refuses to set aside an arbitral award, and not when certain groun....
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
