Back
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Federal Agency for State Property Management of the Russian Federation (Rosimushcestvo) – Appellant
Versus
Sararf Agencies Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The petitioner award-holder seeks enforcement and execution of an Arbitral Award dated 26.3.2021. According to the petitioner, the “Final Arbitral Award” is for Rs. 731,22,51,049.41/- covering the principal amount of Rs. 248,37,58,195/- along with interest from 10.12.2008 – 26.3.2021. The petitioner also claims future interest in terms of section 31(7)(b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 at the statutory rate to be calculated from 27.3.2021 till payment.
2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the Final Arbitral Award in an application under section 34 of the Act and have also made two applications for stay of the Award under section 36(2) of the Act and for setting aside of the Report of the Ld. Registrar, Original Side, of this Court.
3. The adjudication, which has been invited from the Court, needs to be placed in context.
4. The respondents resist the execution case on the basis of an undertaking given on behalf of the petitioner and an interim order premised on such assurance. The context will unfold with the narration of facts which will follow a bit later.
5. As of now, the limited question for adjudication is
The main legal point established in the judgment is that post-award interest is mandatory, and the court has discretionary power to grant stay of an arbitral award, guided by the principles under Ord....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sum to be secured for grant of stay of the Award as per Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would include the post aw....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to direct the petitioner to furnish security on the full arbitral award and the impact of the Arbitration and Conciliat....
Execution of an arbitral award requires compliance with the 90-day limitation under Section 34; execution petitions filed before this period are impermissible.
Arbitration awards, lacking jurisdiction, do not equate to money decrees; interim relief granted during appeal pending jurisdictional determinations.
The Court emphasized the limited scope of challenge against an award under the Act and balanced the equities between the parties in granting or modifying the order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act, there is a requirement for depositing 100% of the awarded amount for the grant of stay, and the Co....
Arbitration Award – Execution - By virtue of the provisions of Section 36, since it is a money decree and the Code of Civil Procedure in Order XLI Rule 1(3) mandates imposition of the terms and condi....
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
