Appeals challenging a dismissal of Section 9 applications under the Arbitration Act allowed with liberty to file Section 17 applications. Nameless arbitrator proceeds independently.
Appellant not to press appeals; liberty to file applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~6 & 7
(i) + FAO 64/2016 & CM No.4402/2016
M/S PRAGATI AL RESOURCES PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Vishwendra Verma with Ms.Shivali, Advocates
versus
NARESH PALIWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
(ii) + FAO 65/2016 & CM No.4404/2016
M/S PRAGATI AL RESOURCES PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Vishwendra Verma with Ms.Shivali, Advocates
versus
SUSHILA PALIWAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R
% 03.08.2016
In the above captioned two appeals, the challenge is to the common impugned judgment of 13th January, 2016 vide which appellant’s two applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed pertaining to two different arbitration agreements have been disposed of together due to the commonality of the pleas taken by the appellant.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these two are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
FAO Nos. 64/2016 & 65/2016
Page 1
seat of arbitration in these two matters is in Delhi and since arbitration proceedings have been invoked by the appellant and in response to the notice sent by the learned Arbitrator, the stand of the respondent herein is that they are not appearing because of the pendency of these two appeals. The aspect of non-appearance is disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the impugned order is not sustainable, but submits that since arbitration proceedings have commenced, therefore, permission be granted to appellant to file an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Arbitrator with the clarification that the impugned judgment will not stand in the way of the learned Arbitrator to independently deal with the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act so filed.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate not to comment on the legality of the impugned judgment and to permit the appellant not to press these two appeals with liberty to the appellant to file applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for the same relief.
These two appeals and applications are accordingly disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
AUGUST 03, 2016 gm
FAO Nos. 64/2016 & 65/2016
Page 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appeals arising from a common impugned order dismissing applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act allowed.
Whether appellant permitted to file applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with liberty to do so.
M/S PRAGATI AL RESOURCES PVT LTD
NARESH PALIWAL
SUSHILA PALIWAL
SUNIL GAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
