Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
H.S. Nag – Appellant
Versus
Asian Hotel (North) Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. With the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid Petitions were taken up together for hearing. Since they arise out of the same Impugned Order and involve substantially similar grounds and issues, this Court proceeds to adjudicate them by way of the present consolidated judgment.
2. These Petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Act assailing theOrders dated 25.07.2025, 22.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 , Impugned Orders passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator, in arbitral proceedings titled “M/S Regency Jewellers and twenty-five others (Batch-A &B)” and “Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. AND Asian Hotels (North) Ltd (Batch-C) and Madonna’s”.
3. All the Petitions, namely, O.M.P. (COMM) 449/2025, O.M.P. (COMM) 460/2025 and O.M.P. (COMM) 475/2025, present Petitions, arise out of the same arbitral proceedings and challenge the same Impugned Orders. The Petitioners in the present Petitions, namely, H.S. Nag and Ors., Ajay Kumar Rastogi and Late Meena Rastogi through LRs, Petitioners respectively, belong to the same Batch of claimants, i.e., Batch B, before the Arbitral Tribunal.
4. It is common ground that all
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....
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.
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against an interim award is maintainable where the order determines rights or forecloses a party's defense.
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.
The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly regarding the filing of Section 34 applications during the pendency o....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the amendment made to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, and that the de....
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 court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award commences upon receipt of a signed order, not an unsigned draft, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
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
