Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The interim order will continue until further orders and not be applicable to any petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before any Hon‟ble High Court or under any jurisdiction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court."

20. That apart, it is also stated that the petitioner had filed certain claims before the CMA who dismissed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application dated February 1, 2022 before the NCLT, Mumbai challenging the decision of the CMA.

22. It is stated that the petitioner had concealed the fact that it had lodged the same claims before the CMA as has been sought to be referred to arbitration.

23. A reply has been filed by the petitioner to the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent wherein it has been stated that the claims up to October 15, 2018 submitted before the CMA is without prejudice and whilst reserving its rights to prosecute its claims for damages against the respondent in the arbitration proceedings, as is clear from a perusal of paragraph 22 of the petition.

25. It is also stated that the table contained in the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent (reproduced above) is misleading inasmuch as the same only selectively compares claims raised in the notice invoking arbitration with those filed with the CMA. In fact, I find that a comparison of claims raised in the notice invoking arbitration and those submitted before the CMA has been filed by the petitioner in a tabular form which is reproduced as below:

37. Further, he submitted that in view of the resolution framework and the invitation of claims, the petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, submitted its claims against the respondent up to October 15, 2018, before the CMA. The CMA has vide email dated June 15, 2022 stated that these claims are already part of arbitration and will be subject to adjudication pursuant to arbitration. The CMA has, for this reason, refused to either admit or reject such claims. If as per the respondent, there can be no arbitration at all, then it would mean that the petitioner‟s claims even prior to October 15, 2018 are not being entertained. The effect of the above is that the petitioner is completely left remediless in respect of both its pre-cut off date claims and post cut-off date claims. Such a result cannot be countenanced in law. To buttress his argument, he has relied upon the following judgments-