Mr. Justice A.S. Doctor

On a harmonious reading of 9(1) and 9(3) of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not denuded of its power to grant interim relief when an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted – Ambrish H. Soni Vs. Mr. Chetan Narendra Dhakan and Ors. – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that, the Court:

(i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions
(ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view,
(iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary conclusion,
(iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and
(v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals.

The Hon’ble Court further held that it is well settled and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 209 SC that on a harmonious reading of 9(1) and 9(3) of the Arbitration Act the Court is not denuded of its power to grant interim relief when an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted. What the Court has to examine is if the Applicant has an efficacious remedy under Section 17 or that circumstances exist, which may not render the remedy provided under Section 17 of the 1996 Act efficacious.

On a harmonious reading of 9(1) and 9(3) of the Arbitration Act, the Court is not denuded of its power to grant interim relief when an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted – Ambrish H. Soni Vs. Mr. Chetan Narendra Dhakan and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Steps are required to be adopted for writ of Summons issued under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, Important decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court on procedure for issuance of Summons by DRT – Sunil Gupta Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. – Bombay High Court

Hon’ble High Court listed the steps that from DRT Rules and DRT Regulations, it is clear that the following steps are required to be adopted for the writ of summons to be issued under the Seal of the Registrar and served on the Defendants to the O.A. (including petitioners herein):

Steps are required to be adopted for writ of Summons issued under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, Important decision of Division Bench of Bombay High Court on procedure for issuance of Summons by DRT – Sunil Gupta Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Division Bench of Bombay High Court listed Do’s and Don’ts for action under Section 14 of SARFAESI – Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court

Division Bench held that the proceedings adopted by Petitioner to secure possession of its security interest has been effectively scuttled and resulted in relief being granted to defaulting and non-co-operative Borrowers. Such patently illegal orders, apart from defeating the very purpose of Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act, also burden this Hon’ble Court with needless litigation. It is for these reasons that we find it necessary to once again reiterate the extent and scope of the jurisdiction of the DA under Section 14. The Designated Authorities (DA) while considering an Application filed by a secured creditor under Section 14 is only required to ascertain as follows and Section 14 does not contemplate the following.

Division Bench of Bombay High Court listed Do’s and Don’ts for action under Section 14 of SARFAESI – Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is only an enabling provision which comes into play only after the defaulting borrower has failed and/or neglected to discharge in full its liability to the secured creditor and is limited to providing assistance to the secured creditor to recover possession of secured asset against non-co-operative borrowers that all – Authorized Officer, I.D.B.I Bank Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court

It is also essential to note that Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act is for “Enforcement of Security Interest” and Section 13 specifically provides for a secured creditor to enforce the security interest created in its favour without the intervention of the court or tribunal. The secured creditor under Section 13 (3A) has a right to make any representation or raise any objection on receipt of a demand notice. Section 14 is only an enabling provision which comes into play only after the defaulting borrower has failed and/or neglected to discharge in full its liability to the secured creditor and is limited to providing assistance to the secured creditor to recover possession of secured asset against non-co-operative borrowers that all.

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is only an enabling provision which comes into play only after the defaulting borrower has failed and/or neglected to discharge in full its liability to the secured creditor and is limited to providing assistance to the secured creditor to recover possession of secured asset against non-co-operative borrowers that all – Authorized Officer, I.D.B.I Bank Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top