Shri Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Buyer of Not Readily Realisable Assets (NRRA) cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for recovery where proceedings initiated by RP before selling the NRRA are already pending consideration before NCLT – Rainbow Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court

In this case, IRP filed IA that orders/consignments sent through Department of Posts which had been neither delivered to customers nor returned to origin, and there were also orders which had been delivered and for which COD amount stood collected. Thereafter, during Liquidation, the NRRA sold to Buyer.
Writ petition filed by buyer was dismissed by Single Judge Bench of High Court holding that it was not open for the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for recovery of outstanding dues, as the proceedings in respect of the same are already pending consideration before the NCLT.
In LPA, Division Bench dismissed the petition.

Buyer of Not Readily Realisable Assets (NRRA) cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for recovery where proceedings initiated by RP before selling the NRRA are already pending consideration before NCLT – Rainbow Digital Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

An Arbitration Award cannot be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence – NTPC Ltd. Vs. L and T – MHPS Boilers Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) It is no longer res integra that the scope of interference by the Courts in arbitration proceedings and arbitral awards is narrow. The Courts should be slow and circumspect in interfering with any award which is passed by an arbitral tribunal which has been appointed pursuant to an agreement between the parties to the dispute. Section 34 of the A&C Act outlines within it, only certain instances under which the Courts can interfere with any award passed by arbitral tribunals and set it aside.
(ii) The proviso to Section 34(2A) makes it aptly clear that awards cannot be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence. Further, Explanation 2 of Section 34(2)(b) makes it clear that any allegation of contravention of public policy of Indian Law cannot entail a review on merits of the dispute.
(iii) It is also settled law that the Courts cannot travel beyond the scope of Section 34 in an appeal under Section 37 from an Order of the Court in an application preferred by a party to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

An Arbitration Award cannot be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence – NTPC Ltd. Vs. L and T – MHPS Boilers Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

In Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into the merits of an arbitral award but can only adjudicate upon the order impugned in the proceedings to determine whether the Section 34 Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 34 or not – National Highways Authority of India Vs. GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that in the context of an order challenging an order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, a Court in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is limited to what has been conferred by Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into the merits of an arbitral award but can only adjudicate upon the order impugned in the proceedings to determine whether the Section 34 Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or not.

In Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or enter into the merits of an arbitral award but can only adjudicate upon the order impugned in the proceedings to determine whether the Section 34 Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 34 or not – National Highways Authority of India Vs. GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

A successful auction purchaser has a remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in case of cancellation of an auction at subsequent stage in respect of measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act – Seema Sahni Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. – Delhi High Court

The present case is a case where the Borrower, after the process of auction was conducted, submitted an OTS Proposal and the Bank keeping in view the policy framed by the RBI has accepted the same. The Respondent Bank in those circumstances has cancelled the auction. Hon’ble High Court held that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act certainly provides a remedy to aggrieved person, and as rightly held by Learned Single Judge, cancellation of an auction is a subsequent stage in respect of measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that a successful auction purchaser does not have a remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is true that writ jurisdiction can be invoked in the matter; however, the writ jurisdiction being equitable and discretionary in nature should not be exercised unless there are exceptional circumstances, as rightly held by the Learned Single Judge.

A successful auction purchaser has a remedy to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in case of cancellation of an auction at subsequent stage in respect of measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act – Seema Sahni Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top