IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Mr. Bhavanishankar H. Sharma Through His Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Satish Kumar Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
SRS Private Investment Powai Limite Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Rohit Dave & Ors. - Respondents
O.M.P. (T) (Comm.) No. 26 of 2022 & I.A. No. 2979 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Arbitration Act - Termination of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate - Section 14(2) and Section 15 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and expunging adverse remarks. The court found the petitioner's conduct dilatory and dismissed the petition with costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct did not satisfy the requirements of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for terminating the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. The court also dismissed the petitioner's request to expunge the remarks made by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Issues: Termination of Arbitral Tribunal's mandate, expunging adverse remarks, petitioner's conduct
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct did not meet the requirements for terminating the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. The court also found that it did not have the power to expunge any part of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2 lakhs to be deposited by the petitioner in the 'Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Fund' of Bar Council of Delhi within a period of two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14(2) read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act), seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and also for expunging the adverse and prejudicial remarks contained in order dated 05.10.2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to leave to withdraw the petition.
3. However, keeping in view of the averments made in the petition and also the written submissions, this court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.
4. It would be expedient to refer to the factual matrix which led to the passing of the subject order by the Arbitral Tribunal.
5. Respondent has filed the subject claim before the Arbitral Tribunal on 23.03.2021 of the value of approximately Rs. 248 cores besides interest.
6. In the year another creditor of the petitioners CBRE, South Asia Private Limited had approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT for short) seeking winding up of the Petitioner under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
7. By order 23.08.2021, NCLT issued a moratorium and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP for short).
8. Petitioner settled with the said creditor on 28.08.2021. Thereafter, on 02.09.2021, petitioner approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT for short) and informed the NCLAT that the disputes had been settled with the creditor CBRE, South Asia Private Limited and sought stay of the further proceedings by the Interim Resolution Professional. By order dated 02.09.2021, NCLAT stayed the proceedings by the IRP.
9. On 27.09.2021, subject Arbitral Tribunal was informed about the moratorium being in place and the Arbitral Tribunal was requested for suspension of the proceedings.
10. Thereafter, on 04.10.2021, NCLAT was once again informed about the settlement and a statement was made before the NCLAT that proceedings initiated by the said creditor CBRE South Asia Private Limited would be withdrawn pursuant to the settlement.
11. By the subject impugned order dated 05.10.2021, the Arbitral Tribunal, noticing the conduct of the petitioner held and directed as under :-
15. Staying the present proceedings, the Tribunal directs the respondents to file, within 4 days, an application before NCLT, if CSRE South Asia Private Limited does not file an application to withdraw the proceedings initiated by it for insolvency of respondent No.4.”
12. Subject order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal clearly records the conduct of the petitioner and in that light makes certain observations.
13. The factual narration does not end with the subject order. It may be further noticed that though the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 05.10.2021 directed the petitioner to approach the NCLT within four days to
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.