9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Incapacity of the petitioner due to lack of notice of advocate's discharge. 2. Conflict with public policy of India. 3. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator post-appointment of the provisional liquidator. Detailed Analysis: 1. Incapacity of the Petitioner Due to Lack of Notice of Advocate's Discharge: The petitioner argued that the award should be set aside as they were under incapacity due to not receiving proper notice of their advocates' discharge, preventing them from presenting their case. The arbitrator had held a preliminary meeting on July 14, 1997, where detailed instructions were provided, and the petitioners' counsel was present. Despite multiple opportunities and adjournments, the petitioners failed to file their written statement. The arbitrator observed that the petitioners' conduct indicated an attempt to delay proceedings. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, noting that service of notice was waived by the parties or their counsel at every stage and that the withdrawal of advocates was a last-ditch effort to delay the proceedings. 2. Conflict with Public Policy of India: The petitioner contended that the award conflicted with public policy under section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court examined the arbitration proceedings and found that the arbitrator had conducted the proceedings fairly and had given ample opportunities to the petitioners to present their case. The court observed that the petitioners had been present until October 21, 1997, and had only withdrawn when it became clear that further adjournments would not be granted. The court concluded that the arbitrator's conduct did not violate public policy. 3. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator Post-Appointment of the Provisional Liquidator: The petitioner argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration after the appointment of the provisional liquidator under section 446 of the Companies Act. The arbitrator and the court examined the sequence of events and the relevant legal provisions. The court noted that the provisional liquidator's appointment was conditional and that no winding-up order had been passed. The court referenced the Kerala High Court's judgment in A.M. Padmakshi v. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd., which clarified that section 446 does not apply to pending proceedings unless a winding-up order is made. The court found no error in the arbitrator's interpretation and held that section 446 did not bar the continuation of the arbitration proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the arbitration petitions, finding no merit in the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the grounds pleaded did not fall within the ambit of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and reiterated that judicial intervention in arbitration awards is limited. The arbitrator's conduct was deemed fair, and the petitioners' attempts to delay proceedings were unsuccessful. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
