Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
BHARAT PETRORESOURCES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
JSW ISPAT SPECIAL PRODUCTS LIMITED – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner (hereafter ‘BPRL’) has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the A&C Act’) inter-alia, praying that the nominee arbitrator be appointed on behalf of the respondent, to enable constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Joint Operating Agreement dated 05.04.2013 (hereafter ‘the Agreement’).
2. BPRL, GAIL (India) Limited, Engineers India Limited, BF Infrastructure Limited and the respondent (then known as Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited) had entered into a Production Sharing Contract dated 30.08.2012 (hereafter the ‘PSC’) with the Government of India in respect of the Contract Area identified as Block: CB-ONN-2010/8.
3. Thereafter, the members of the consortium [BPRL, GAIL (India) Limited, Engineers India Limited, BF Infrastructure and the respondent] entered into the Agreement for carrying out joint operations under the PSC. BPRL and GAIL (India) Limited were jointly designated as Operators with BPRL being accepted as the Lead Operator to carry out the joint operations pursuant to the Agreement.
The Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable.
Point of law: The Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable.
The initiation of arbitration is impermissible due to an existing moratorium that restrains all legal proceedings, including arbitration, until the related insolvency matters are resolved.
Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on such claims.
Disputes concerning alleged payments are referable to arbitration despite claims of prior resolution efforts, where the existence of disputes was upheld.
IBC is a time bound process – Plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.
Resolution plan approved despite 99.92% haircut; unclaimed pre-CIRP claims extinguished upon section 31 approval; NCLT limits reliefs to IBC/Companies Act; new management shielded under section 32A; ....
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
