Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Khurana Educational Society (Regd.) – Appellant
Versus
Shashi Bala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Appeal under Section 37 (2)(b) of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , A&C Act has been preferred by the Appellant- Society assailing theOrder dated 16.09.2025 , Impugned Order passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings titled ―Smt. Shashi Bala v. Khurana Educational Society (Regd.)", whereby certain interim measures under Section 17 of the A&C Act came to be granted in favour of the Respondent-Claimant, including directions for deposit of usage charges and ancillary protective reliefs.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the institution of the present Appeal are as follows:
I. The Respondent-Claimant asserts ownership over land bearing Khasra No. 13/7 admeasuring approximately 4840 sq. yds. situated in Village Goyla Khurd, New Delhi, Subject Property, on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in her favour. It is averred that a registered lease deed dated 02.05.2000 came to be executed between the parties whereby the Subject Property was let out to the Appellant-Society at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, the property being utilized by the Appellant for purposes conne
The court ruled that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act cannot effectively adjudicate final rights or impose substantial financial burdens without trial, emphasizing the importanc....
The court emphasized that interim reliefs must demonstrate urgency and evidence of asset dissipation; unpleaded restraints violate natural justice, requiring adherence to procedural safeguards.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious, particularly regarding third parties not party....
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
The discretionary power under section 17 of the A&C Act should be exercised sparingly and not to convert indeterminate and unsecured counter-claims into secure claims.
The arbitral tribunal has broad powers to issue interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring protection of claims during ongoing proceedings.
Principle of minimum judicial intervention is one of fundamental tenets of arbitration law.
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
