Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Easy Trip Planners Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
One97 Communications Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interlocutory order rejection in arbitration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges to arbitral orders limited by article 34. (Para 3 , 5 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. non-appealability of certain arbitral orders. (Para 4 , 7 , 11 , 17) |
| 4. judicial intervention in arbitration is minimal. (Para 10 , 14 , 16 , 19) |
| 5. petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Para 20) |
1. A learned three-member Arbitral Tribunal has, in arbitral proceedings between the parties of which it is in seisin, passed an interlocutory order on 18th June 2022, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to bring on record additional documents.
2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the said order.
3. To my mind, the present petition is not maintainable, in view of the following enunciation of the law, to be found in paras 45 and 46 of the report in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 :
"45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Consti
Judicial intervention in arbitration is restricted; parties can only challenge interim orders in specific circumstances post-award under the Arbitration Act.
Section 34 of the 1996 Act permits a challenge “against an arbitral award ... only by an application for setting aside such award”. “Arbitral award” is defined, in clause (c) of Section 2(1), as “inc....
Doctrine of precedent is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean, it was held, that the court was bound by the various reasons given in support o....
A party to arbitration proceedings has a remedy to challenge the award passed in such proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for exceptional circumstances to invoke the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227, the limitations on judicial interference in ar....
Limited scope of High Court's interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
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
