Once a Court exercises its jurisdiction under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and directs security in a particular mode and manner, it always retains inherent jurisdiction in respect of such security – Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners Vs. MBL Infrastructure Ltd. – Calcutta High Court
February 7, 2025
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that there are different situations which may arise even after the passing of an order under section 36 of the Arbitration Act. The parties or any one of them may need to approach Court in view of subsequent events or changed circumstances. The security may also require to be renewed, revalued or re-examined. Thus, once a Court exercises its jurisdiction under section 36 of the Act and directs security in a particular mode and manner, it always retains inherent jurisdiction in respect of such security. In such circumstances, any order passed at this stage of the proceeding is an interim order and by nature subject to alteration, variation or modification. As such, a Court always retains the power and jurisdiction to pass necessary orders.