Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, AJAY DIGPAUL, JJ
ANOOP SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
PUKHRAJ SINGH CHUG AND ORS. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This appeal assails judgment dated 23 August 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (I) (COMM) 273/2024 and order dated 13 November 2024, whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the 1996 Act" hereinafter] has been disallowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. We agree that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, but only on the side of leniency. The learned Single Judge has visited the appellant with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. In our view, the costs are required to be enhanced.
3. Towards this end, we put it to Mr. Upamanyu Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that, given the nature of the present appeal, if we were not in agreement with his submissions, it might invite enhancement of costs. He submits that his instructions are to press the appeal.
4. We have therefore heard Mr. Upamanyu Sharma at great length. We have also heard Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 to 6, Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for other respondents.
5. Mid-dictat
The court emphasized the importance of timely action in arbitration proceedings and deemed the appellant's conduct objectionable, leading to dismissal of the appeal and enhancement of costs.
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
Sub-section (3) of Section 9 provides for restriction of exercise of powers by the Court and it has to decide whether the remedy provided under section 17 is efficacious or not.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 is not maintainable when the sole Arbitrator is appointed by mutual consent and in the ab....
Setting aside arbitral award – Merely mentioning a wrong heading of provision on the application would not defeat cause of justice – Contents of application are required to be seen and not the provis....
Extension of Sole Arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration Act requires sufficient cause, unaffected by procedural misconduct by arbitrator, especially when delays arise from the respondent's actio....
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
