Arbitration proceedings paused due to moratorium not perverse. Debt held as whole. No splitting arbitration. No jurisdiction under Article 226. Dismissed.

The High Court considered whether orders abeying arbitration proceedings during a moratorium period were so perverse as to warrant invoking writ jurisdiction due to a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Arbitrator. The Court held that the debt under moratorium includes the liabilities of all borrowers and guarantors, without a distinction between them. The Court clarified that there is no provision for splitting arbitration proceedings, and they must be decided against all parties. The Tribunal's decision to stay proceedings during the moratorium was not illegal or perverse, thus the petition was dismissed. Sec. 138 and Sec. 139 of the IB Code were deemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X