IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SACHIN DATTA, J.
Accord Advertising Pvt Ltd & Anr.- Appellants
Versus
SM Finlease Ltd – Respondent
Arb. A. (COMM.) 55 of 2024
Decided on : 13-11-2024
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37(2)(b) - Appeal against interim order - The appeal challenges an order of the arbitral tribunal allowing an application under Section 17 for securing the amount in dispute. The tribunal found that the outstanding loan amount exceeded the value of the secured asset, justifying the interim measures. (Paras 6, 15, 18, 24)
(B) Interim Measures - The arbitral tribunal has extensive powers to issue directions for securing amounts in dispute, which are not strictly bound by the provisions of CPC. The court's interference with such orders is limited, emphasizing the need to preserve the arbitral process. (Paras 17, 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellant defaulted on a business loan secured by property, leading to arbitration for recovery of outstanding amounts. The tribunal issued directions to prevent alienation of the secured properties.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal established a prima facie case for the claimant, noting the undisputed facts of loan issuance and property ownership.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim orders and the adequacy of the secured assets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the tribunal's discretion in issuing interim measures, emphasizing the need to secure the claimant's interests during arbitration.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN DATTA, J.
IA No.44833/2024 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
IA No.44834/2024 (delay of 13 days in filing the appeal)
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The application stands disposed of.
ARB. A. (COMM.) 55/2024 and IA No.44832/2024 (Stay)
5. Issue notice. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
6. The present appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the A&C Act’) assails an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the arbitral tribunal (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) while disposing of an application under Section 17 of the A&C Act.
7. The ongoing arbitral proceedings are in the context of a Business Loan Agreement dated 18.01.2021 along with a number of financial documents including a personal guarantee deed dated 18.01.2021, cheques, a promissory note dated 18.01.2021, an Addendum to the Business Loan Agreement dated 24.11.2022, entered into between the parties for the purpose of the appellant expanding its advertising business.
8. Under the said loan agreement dated 18.01.2021, the appellant availed a loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- payable within six months. Since the appellant defaulted in repaying the aforesaid loan amount within the stipulated time, by an Addendum dated 24.11.2022 to the said loan agreement, this period was extended till 31.03.2023. However, the respondent again defaulted in repaying the loan amount within the extended period of time.
9. It is the case of the respondent/claimant in the arbitration proceedings that the aforesaid loan was secured by a property admeasuring 9000 sq. ft. at Mauza Raichak, Pargana-Panchkuli, West Bengal. For this purpose, reliance is also placed on an Agreement to Sell dated 02.12.2022 (hereinafter ‘the agreement to sell’) in respect of the said property. The relevant portion of the agreement to sell is reproduced as under:-
10. A notice of demand dated 07.04.2023 was issued by the respondent/claimant, calling upon the appellants to repay an amount of Rs. 1,17,20,412/- (Rupees one crore seventeen lakhs twenty thousand four hundred and twelve rupees only) along with further interest in lieu of th
The arbitral tribunal has broad powers to issue interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring protection of claims during ongoing proceedings.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious, particularly regarding third parties not party....
An arbitral tribunal, while adjudicating an application for interim protection under Section 17, does not determine the lis between the parties.
The discretionary power under section 17 of the A&C Act should be exercised sparingly and not to convert indeterminate and unsecured counter-claims into secure claims.
The court ruled that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act cannot effectively adjudicate final rights or impose substantial financial burdens without trial, emphasizing the importanc....
The court reinforced that unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to invalid proceedings, hence, a new arbitrator must be appointed.
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.