9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Prayer for super cession of the arbitrator 2. Extension of time for making the award 3. Appointment of Court Receiver 4. Rescinding the arbitration 5. Monitoring of Court Receiver's work Prayer for Super cession of the Arbitrator: The appellant sought super cession of the arbitrator in two arbitration petitions, which was rejected by the High Court. The respondent's cross-petition for extension of time for the arbitrator to make the award was granted. The appellant, a practicing advocate and a sleeping partner in the partnership, filed various arbitration petitions due to the failure of arbitrators to render decisions. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, rescinding the arbitration and vacating the stay on the civil suit, allowing the suit to proceed further. The Court emphasized the need to expedite the suit as the arbitration had failed to resolve the dispute after years of proceedings. Extension of Time for Making the Award: The respondent filed an arbitration petition seeking an extension of time for making and publishing the award, which was granted by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court, after considering the prolonged arbitration proceedings and the failure to reach a decision, rescinded the arbitration, vacated the extension of time, and directed the suit to proceed in accordance with the law. Appointment of Court Receiver: The Supreme Court appointed Shri N.H. Seervai as Court Receiver to resolve the dispute between the parties, but due to his inability to act, the Court modified the order and directed the Trial Court to appoint an appropriate Receiver. The Trial Court appointed Shri M.R. Vaidya as the Court Receiver, with directions to ensure compliance by the parties. The Court emphasized that all future monitoring of the Court Receiver's work would be within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, without further reference to the Supreme Court. Rescinding the Arbitration: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and rescinded the arbitration, allowing the civil suit to proceed further. The Court emphasized the need for the suit to progress as the arbitration had failed to resolve the dispute between the parties effectively. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy and left it to the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Monitoring of Court Receiver's Work: As the Trial Court was tasked with further monitoring the Court Receiver's work, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no need to continue the proceedings. Any grievances regarding the Trial Court's orders could be addressed through appropriate legal channels. The Court emphasized that all questions related to the Court Receiver's work would be decided by the Trial Court after hearing the parties and in accordance with the law, without interference from the Supreme Court. In summary, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the issues of super cession of the arbitrator, extension of time for making the award, appointment of the Court Receiver, rescinding the arbitration, and monitoring the Court Receiver's work, emphasizing the need for the civil suit to proceed after failed arbitration proceedings and leaving the resolution of disputes to the Trial Court.
|
