Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Cement Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Promac Engineering Industries Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against arbitral orders (Para 2) |
| 2. interpretation of section 9 of the 1996 act (Para 3) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)
CM No.20956/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 92/2021 & CM No.20954/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay]
CM No.20955/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking stay on the operation of the impugned orders]
2. This is an appeal filed against the order of the learned single judge dated 02.02.2021, and the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') dated 20.02.2020 and 07.08.2020.
2.1. Briefly, the issue, which arises for consideration, in the present appeal concerns the tenability of the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `1996 Act') by the appellant in respect of the aforementioned orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal via the impugned orders has fixed its fee based on an interpretation placed by it on the provisions of Schedule IV of the 1996 Act. It is these orders which were assailed by the appellant before the learned single judge
The court clarified that the residuary clause in Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit intervention for issues pertaining to fee calculation by the Tribunal.
The residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not cover orders passed by the Tribunal concerning the calculation of fee based on the interpretation of th....
Procedural orders by an Arbitral Tribunal regarding fees are not subject to challenge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The main legal point established is that Section 9 of the A&C Act empowers the Court to grant interim measures and does not encompass challenges to procedural orders regarding arbitration fees.
The court appointed a retired judge as a sole arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration Act, allowing the appellant to pursue interlocutory applications while emphasizing that the merits of the c....
Interpretation of Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the context of granting interim relief and the need for further clarification on the steps taken during the pe....
The court clarified that once an application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is entertained, it can proceed despite the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, unless the reme....
Interim relief under Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act does not apply once arbitration proceedings have commenced; directions made under such circumstances may be modified.
The court held that challenges to procedural orders of an arbitral tribunal regarding fees do not fall within the scope of interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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
