Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Varaha Infra Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jiangxi Construction Engineering (Group) Co. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of arbitration appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of the appellant and respondent (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's reasoning and analysis on interim measures (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. ruling on the appeal and directions (Para 24) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of appeal (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present appeal under Section 37 (2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') has been filed impugning to a limited extent, the orders dated 9th August, 2021 and 18th August, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator, disposing of applications, filed by both the parties under Section 17 of the Act.
2. The Appellant is the Respondent in the arbitral proceedings and the Respondent is the Claimant therein. The reliefs granted by the learned Arbitrator, as noted in the operative portion of the order dated 9th August, 2021 read as follows:
"4. The operative part of the order is being passed as under:
a) The Claimant is to release an amount of Rs.8,59,73,470/- in favour of the Respondent against RA bill number 12, out of Rs.9,05,46,067, which w
The Arbitrator's issuance of interim payment directions must not resemble a final resolution and should not exceed the scope of temporary measures permissible under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act.
An arbitral tribunal, while adjudicating an application for interim protection under Section 17, does not determine the lis between the parties.
The court upheld the specific performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and granted interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to prevent the appellant from disrupting....
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
Section 17 relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires proof of both a prima facie case and potential asset dissipation, which was not adequately demonstrated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order passed by the Arbitrator under section 17(1)(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a proper exercise of jurisdict....
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's decision emphasized the limited scope of interference with orders of the Tribunal under Section 37 of the Act and the guiding factors in the exercise of power under Section 17 of the 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
