Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Bhavanishankar H Sharma – Appellant
Versus
SRS Private Investment Powai Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of arbitration and creditor actions. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's request for withdrawal and allegations of bias. (Para 2 , 3 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. impact of tribunal's order and petitioner's conduct. (Para 4 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. conditions for termination of arbitral tribunal mandate. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. supreme court directives and relevance to the case. (Para 24 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. final dismissal of the petition and costs imposed. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 14(2) read with Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act), seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and also for expunging the adverse and prejudicial remarks contained in order dated 05.10.2021 of the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to leave to withdraw the petition.
3. However, keeping in view of the averments made in the petition and also the written submissions, this court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioner.
4. It would be expedient to refer to t
A party cannot terminate the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without satisfying statutory conditions, especially when allegations of bias are unsubstantiate....
The court emphasized that the requirements of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act must be satisfied for the termination of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate and that the court does not have the power to ....
The court has the authority to direct an arbitrator to pass the award expeditiously, considering the delay and the parties' agreement to proceed with the same arbitrator.
Parties involved in arbitration may withdraw petitions and seek recourse before appointed arbitrators to maintain their rights under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Absence of grounds for terminating arbitrator's mandate necessitates seeking extension under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established is that even when an arbitration award is set aside, the parties can initiate arbitration proceedings afresh, strictly in terms of the arbitration agreement between t....
The court emphasized the need to adhere to the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act in determining arbitrator's fees and highlighted the importance of avoiding delay in arbitration proceedings to p....
The court emphasizes the necessity of arbitration for settling disputes between parties, facilitating fair adjudication and respecting the process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator when a party's prolonged failure to reconstitute the Arbitral Tribunal frustrates the arbitration process.
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
