Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Ranjana Mitra Proprietor of Ms V2 Associates – Appellant
Versus
Mohit Narang – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging order under article 227 (Para 1) |
| 2. grounds for challenging costs imposed (Para 2 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. previous adjournments impact on current cases (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. modification of costs awarded (Para 10) |
| 5. disposal of the petition (Para 11) |
1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging |order dated 11th October 2022 passed by a learned sole Arbitrator in Case Reference DIAC/2945/03-21 (Mohit Narang v. Ranjana Mitra)|, pending between the respondent as the claimant and the petitioner as the respondent.
2. Mr. Deepak Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, restricts the scope of the challenge in the present petition to the costs imposed by the learned Arbitrator. He submits that the learned Arbitrator was not justified in imposing costs of Rs. 85,000/-, as the maximum costs which are envisaged by clause 21.6(2) under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules is only Rs. 35,000/-. It is also submitted Mr Prakash that the costs have been imposed merely because the petitioner sought an adjournment. He submits that the petitioner is a single lady staying at Barelly and, owing
An arbitrator's costs can be challenged if deemed excessive, particularly when justified reasons for adjournments are presented.
Judicial discretion under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly, reaffirming that costs imposed by lower courts for adjournments can be upheld if justified by the conduct of the parties.
A court under Article 227 will not interfere in adjourned proceedings unless there are compelling reasons. The parties retain the right to resolve disputes before the original judge.
A petitioner cannot file a petition after accepting costs paid by the respondent without disclosing this fact, and the Trial Court's exercise of discretion in condoning the delay in filing the applic....
Judicial intervention in arbitration is restricted; parties can only challenge interim orders in specific circumstances post-award under the Arbitration Act.
Once arbitration has commenced in the arbitral tribunal, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless, of course, a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act even ....
The court upheld that a stay of an arbitral award requires a reasonable security deposit, and statutory bars apply to revision applications against interlocutory orders in commercial matters.
The Court upheld the Trial Court's jurisdiction to impose costs for seeking adjournment and for delay in filing the written statement, and deemed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
The court affirmed the principle that discretionary orders regarding costs by lower courts should not be interfered with unless shown to be excessive or unjust.
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
