Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Umesh Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Gupta - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 159 of 2022
Decided On : 17-06-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintainability argued due to prior enforcement petition. (Para 2) |
| 2. challenge to an arbitral award under reconsideration. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observed no reason to interfere. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. appeal dismissed without merit determination. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 28443/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 159/2022 & CM APPL. 28442/2022 (Additional Documents) & 28444/2022 (urgent directions)
3. By way of the present appeal, Appellant raises challenge to an order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P(I) (COMM) 181/2022, which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
"1.0 This is a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) wherein the petitioner is praying for directions to the respondent inter alia to immediately hand over the machinery and activate the URL and restore his rights to access of ERP etc, as detailed in prayer clause, pursuant to the arbitral award dated 01/02nd August 2021.
2.0 Learned counsel for the respondent challenges the maintainability of the present petition under Section 9 (A&C Act) in view of the fact that the respondent has already filed Enforcement Petition vide OMP (ENF.) (COMM) 125/2022, for enforcement of the aforesaid arbitral award, same is also listed for today.
2.1 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that he requires time to make submissions, as they have received copy of the petition only on 02.06.2022. This fact finds mention in order dated 02.06.2022.
3.0 List on 27.06.2022."
4. Perusal of the order shows that rights of the parties have not been adjudicated and the learned Single Judge has listed the matter for further consideration on 27.06.2022.
5. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed along with pending applications.
7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The court upheld that without adjudicated rights, it would not interfere in procedural orders under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
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....
An arbitrator's alleged bias requires proof of substantial control and an ongoing relationship with a party, which was not established in this case.
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 the recognition of urgency in interim relief and the direction for an expeditious hearing before the learned Arbitrator.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that interim orders in arbitration proceedings, not falling within the appealable orders under the Act, are not subject to correction by the High 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....
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
