Disposed¶17

Prachi Jain v. Axis Bank Limited

Bombay HC27 Mar 2025ARBP/112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 petition; interim stay of execution of arbitral award dated October 23, 2023 passed after one-time settlement dated June 27, 2023; ex parte arbitration with judgement reserved July 7, 2023; Tribunal not intimated of settlement; Axis Bank Limited absent despite notice and given last chance; final hearing May 5, 2025 Supplementary Board; Bombay High Court; Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.; Prachi Jain v. Axis Bank Limited.

What did the court decide?

Execution of the impugned arbitral award dated October 23, 2023 stayed forthwith; the Respondent, absent despite notice, given a last chance to remain present; matter listed for final hearing on the Supplementary Board on May 5, 2025; the Petitioner's advocate directed to serve a copy of the order and proceedings on the Respondent once again. ¶17

Prachi Jain vs Axis Bank Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether execution of the impugned arbitral award, passed despite the disputes between the parties having been settled pursuant to the June 27, 2023 one-time settlement, should be stayed. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

It is prima facie clear that the arbitral award has been passed despite the disputes and differences between the parties already having been settled pursuant to the settlement proposal made and accepted between the parties.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the impugned award is stayed forthwith.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Arbitration Petition No. 112 of 2025 — Prachi Jain v. Axis Bank Limited — Somasekhar Sundaresan, J. — April 17, 2025 (corrected pursuant to speaking-to-minutes order dated April 28, 2025). Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The parties had arrived at a one-time settlement dated June 27, 2023, which has been honoured. The Arbitral Tribunal, conducting the proceedings ex parte, reserved judgement on July 7, 2023 and passed the impugned award on October 23, 2023 without being intimated of the intervening settlement. Holding it prima facie clear that the award was passed despite the disputes and differences between the parties already having been settled pursuant to the settlement proposal made and accepted between them, the Court stayed execution of the impugned award forthwith. The Respondent was absent despite notice and was given a last chance to remain present; the matter was listed for final hearing on the Supplementary Board on May 5, 2025, with the Petitioner's advocate directed to serve a copy of the order and proceedings on the Respondent once again.

¶1

Corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated April 28, 2025. spkng-544-ARBP-112-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 112 OF 2025

¶4

Prachi Jain …Petitioner

Versus

Axis Bank Limited

…Respondent

Ms. Barirah Shaikh, i/b Sebin Michael Joseph for the Petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2025

¶10

PC :

¶11

This Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( “the Act” ).

¶12

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and having examined the record with her able assistance it is evident that the parties had arrived at a settlement dated June 27, 2023, whereby a one-time settlement was reached between the parties. The disputes and differences between the parties ought to have come an end pursuant to such settlement, which has been honoured.

¶13

Digitally signed byASHWINI ASHWINIJANARDANVALLAKATI JANARDANVALLAKATIDate: 2025.05.08 13:29:15 +0530

¶14

Page 1 of 3 April 17, 2025

¶15

Corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated April 28, 2025. spkng-544-ARBP-112-2025.doc

¶16

However, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal which conducted the arbitration proceedings ex parte, reserved judgement on July 7, 2023. Evidently, the Respondent does not appear to have intimated the Learned Arbitral Tribunal about the settlement between the parties that intervened, and the impugned award came to be passed on October 23, 2023. Consequently, it is prima facie clear the arbitral award has been passed despite the disputes and differences between the parties already having been settled pursuant to the settlement proposal made and accepted between the parties.

¶17

In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to stay the execution of the impugned award forthwith.

¶18

Despite notice, the Respondent is not present. As a last chance to enable the Respondent to remain present, list on the Supplementary Board on May 5, 2025 . The Advocate for the Petitioner shall serve a copy of this order and the proceedings once again on the Respondent highlighting that the matter would be taken up for final hearing on that date.

¶19

Page 2 of 3 April 17, 2025

¶20

Ashwini Vallakati

¶21

Corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes order dated April 28, 2025.

¶22

spkng-544-ARBP-112-2025.doc

¶23