Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Indian Agro Marketing Co-operative Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions challenge identical arbitrator orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims previous order lacks alternate remedy. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court examines jurisdiction under section 25(a). (Para 5 , 7 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. importance of recall applications in arbitration. (Para 12 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. supreme court ruling on recalling orders under section 25. (Para 15 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. petitions allowed; arbitrator to consider recall applications. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
1. These petitions assail identical orders dated 19th February, 2021, passed by the learned sole arbitrator, arbitrating on the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent, in respect of identical contracts bearing different numbers.
2. Despite notice, the respondent has not appeared today.
3. It is seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent on the last date of hearing either.
4. I have heard Mr Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union of India and applied myself to the facts and the law that applies.
5. The learned sole arbitrator has, exercising her jurisdiction under Section 25(a)1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act)
Arbitrators must consider recall applications under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration Act when sufficient cause is shown, especially in the absence of alternate remedies for appeal.
High Court’s exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, and setting aside of the order of the Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the arbitrator's duty to inform the claimant of their failure to communicate their claim and to provide an opportunity to show sufficient cause, an....
The Arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider recall of a termination order if sufficient cause is shown for non-filing of claims, reinforcing judicial support for arbitral processes. The defaulting pa....
An arbitrator loses jurisdiction after the termination of proceedings, rendering any subsequent orders void.
A party to arbitration proceedings has a remedy to challenge the award passed in such proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 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
