Disposed

M/S B.E. Office Automation Product Private Limited v. M/S Orris Infrastructure Private Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2018CR/4122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application for stay of an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, noting the matter was listed for final arguments and an interim order existed, disposed of the revision without merits, directing the Principal Court to decide the objection petition within two months.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with direction to the Principal Court to decide the objection petition within two months.

M/S B.E. Office Automation Product Private Limited Vs… — Arbitration | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

C.R. No.4122 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.4122 of 2017 Date of Decision.07.03.2018

¶5

M/s B.E. Office Automation Product Private Limited ......Petitioner

¶6

¶7

M/s Orris Infrastructure Private Limited ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶9

Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Jain, Advocate and Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Veer Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶13

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.03.2017 whereby the application moved by the petitioner-objector in the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for stay of the award as per the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed.

¶14

Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vibhav Jain and Mr. Paramveer Singh appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Arbitrator had passed the Award dated 12.12.2016. In the objection filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the aforementioned award, an application was moved for stay of the award owing to the amendment of 2015 caused in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein it has been stated that the filing of the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not automatically PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.20 16:14 stay the operation of the award. The aforementioned application has I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

C.R. No.4122 of 2017 -2-

¶16

erroneously been dismissed without assigning any reason, therefore, there is fallacy, much less, irregularity.

¶17

Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Veer Singh appearing for the respondent submitted that the matter is listed for final arguments before the Principal Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Gurugram. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already got the interim order dated 08.12.2017 in a petition filed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act regarding certain contingencies envisaged in the award. The objection petition was filed after the amendment in the Act, therefore, there was requirement to move an independent application, which has been dismissed for the reasons stated therein. The Delhi High Court had an occasion to deal with the issue in Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Anuradha Bhatia passed in FAO No.221 of 2016 on 06.01.2017 wherein while interpreting the repealing and saving clause of Section 26 of the Amendment Act, 2015, it held that where arbitration proceedings have been initiated prior to the amendment in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the old provisions would be applicable, meaning thereby, there would be an automatic stay of the award. However, the aforementioned issue is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶18

I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. This court during the course of arguments asked Mr. Mittal as to whether any application has been moved for the execution of the award, the answer was in negative and he ensures that his client shall not move any such application.

¶19

Since the matter has already been listed for final arguments and

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

C.R. No.4122 of 2017

¶22

-3-

¶23

there is interim order dated 08.12.2017 with regard to certain contingencies in favour of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, without going into the merits and demerits of the matter as it may affect the respective claims of the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision petition with direction to the Principal Court i.e. ADJ, Gurgaon to decide the objection petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶24

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 07, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶25

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S B.E. Office Automation Product Private Limited v. M/S Orris Infrastructure Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S B.E. Office Automation Product Private Limited v. M/S Orris Infrastructure Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulbir Singh Vs Swaran Singh

Balak Ram @ Kaka Ram Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs Dhanpat

(O&M) Ujjagar Singh and Others Vs Prem Singh

Surinder Singh Vs Hardeep Singh Dhillon and Ors.

Dalip Ram Vs Jaspal Kaur & Ors.