Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Hindustan Steel Works - Appellant
Versus
J.B.S. Udyog - Respondent
O.M.P. 41 of 2004, I.A. 2050 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of an application under arbitration act. (Para 1) |
| 2. request for timely award from arbitrator. (Para 2) |
| 3. application not maintainable under cpc. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 4. clarification on application basis by counsel. (Para 4) |
| 5. request for expeditious decision by arbitrator. (Para 6) |
| 6. disposal of application. (Para 7) |
(Video-Conferencing)
I.A. 2050/2021(Under Section 151 of CPC - seeking directions)
1. This is an application filed in a petition, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stands disposed of, by this court, as far back as on 10th August, 2004, by appointing an arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes.
2. The prayer in this application is for a direction to the learned Arbitrator, seized of the arbitral proceedings between the parties, to render the award within a period of three months.
3. To my mind, such an application, in a petition which already stands disposed off, is not maintainable.
4. To a query, from the Bench, as to the provision under which the application has been filed, Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 (the applicant in the application), submits that the application seeks to invoke Section 151 of the CPC.
5. In my opinion, Section 151 of the CPC cannot be used as a residual provision, to sustain applications which are otherwise not maintainable under any provision of the law as it stands, least of all in arbitral proceedings.
6. Be that as it may, as the matter has been pending before the learned arbitrator since long, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this application, with a request to the learned arbitrator to render the award on the arbitration as expeditiously as possible.
7. The application stands disposed off accordingly.
Applications under Section 151 of CPC cannot be maintained if they do not comply with applicable laws, especially in disposed arbitration proceedings.
Inherent power under Section 151 of CPC cannot be exercised when specific provision exists – Mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to application if power to pass such order is a....
The court held that a restraining order remains effective during arbitration until modified, and assurance from the respondent's counsel to not alter the status of the subject property suffices for t....
Disputes may be referred to arbitration even when parties disagree on the identity of the arbitrator; allegations in arbitration petitions are irrelevant to the court's decision on referral.
The court permitted a petition to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to be decided by the arbitrator.
The court allowed the disposal of the petition by treating it as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, thereby enabling the arbitral tribunal to decide the matter.
An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed before the first written statement and within the prescribed limitation period; otherwise, it is not maintainable.
Disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be referred to arbitration with both parties' agreement, confirming the maintainability of applications before the arbitrator.
Section 29A(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 allows for the extension of the arbitrator's mandate upon joint application of the parties.
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
