9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exercise of jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when parties are before an Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Appointment of a Receiver in respect of leased properties possessed by a company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. Issue 1: Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the parties are already before an Arbitral Tribunal with similar powers under section 17 of the Act. The Court deliberated on the conflicting views presented in various judgments. The respondent argued that if a party seeks preliminary relief from the Arbitral Tribunal, invoking section 9 jurisdiction of the Court should be barred. However, the Court disagreed, citing precedents that emphasized the Court's authority to intervene under section 9 even if arbitral proceedings are ongoing. The Court clarified that section 17 is an additional recourse and does not oust the Court's jurisdiction under section 9. Ultimately, the Court held that it has the power to issue orders under section 9 despite the existence of arbitral proceedings. Issue 2: Appointment of a Receiver for Leased Properties under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985: The second issue pertains to the appointment of a Receiver for leased properties currently in possession of a company that has invoked the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. The respondent contended that there is a dispute regarding the ownership of the leased equipment, aiming to prolong the litigation process and potentially obstructing the grant of appropriate relief. The Court examined the clauses of the agreement between the parties, which unequivocally indicated that the leased equipment belonged to the petitioner. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted the necessity of appointing a Receiver in such situations to prevent dissipation of assets, especially when the lessee fails to make payments or risks damaging the equipment. Considering the circumstances and the likelihood of dissipation of assets, the Court ordered the appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the leased equipment and machinery from the respondent, ensuring safe custody and bearing the associated costs. In conclusion, the High Court of Delhi addressed the dual issues of exercising jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and appointing a Receiver for leased properties under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. The judgment clarified the Court's authority to intervene under section 9 despite ongoing arbitral proceedings and emphasized the importance of appointing a Receiver to safeguard assets in contentious situations.
|
