Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATEEK JALAN
Punita Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Rashmi Juneja – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the arbitration reference and claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the maintainability of the section 34 petition and amendment application. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the nature of the orders and finality. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. the distinction between interim and non-interim awards. (Para 21) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition as not maintainable. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"] is directed against an order dated 04.11.2019, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, who is in seisin of disputes between the parties. By the impugned order, the learned arbitrator has rejected an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the statement of claim.
2. A suit [CS(OS) 2603/2014] was originally filed by the petitioner herein against three defendants, of whom the respondent herein was the principal defendant and the other two defendants were arrayed as proforma defendants. By an order dated 07.11.2016, the suit, alongwith five other suits pending in this Court, were re
The rejection of amendment applications in arbitration proceedings based on delay is not an interim award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
An order rejecting an amendment to a statement of claim is not an interim award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it does not determine substantive issues or rights in the arbitration.
The impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be an award or even an interim award within the ambit of the Act of 1996.
Not every procedural order by an Arbitral Tribunal constitutes an interim award; only orders that finally adjudicate substantive disputes qualify for challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and....
Arbitration and Conciliation - Tender - Setting aside of Award - Context of not allowing new or fresh challenge after period of limitation does not mean that under Act, there are multiple petitions u....
The main legal point established is that the court should exercise its discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings, and failure to consider the amendments sought may result in the court not proper....
An order dismissing an application under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration Act is procedural and not an interim award amenable to challenge under Section 34.
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
