Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.61 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 01, 2022
d.negi, as
5
Wander Ltd. & Ors. v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007
20. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition that change in
circumstances and undue hardship are grounds for discharge/modification of
an interim order in terms of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. Though there
is no quarrel on the proposition that the power of substantive review does not
vest in an Arbitral Tribunal, however, in the instant case, TDI was not seeking
a review, but rather, a discharge/modification of the conditions prescribed in
the said interim order, under Section 17 of the Act, in view of the change in
circumstances. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the Arbitral Tribunal was
entitled to exercise the said option, having regard to the principles enshrined
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. In fact, the Supreme Court has
consistently held that while exercising powers under Section 9 of the Act, the
Court is guided by the principles set out in Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the
CPC.2 Similar views have also been expressed by the High Court of Bombay,
holding that the Court or the Arbitral Tribunal, as the case may be, would be
guided by principles contained in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. 3
Therefore, if, for considering the issue of vacation/ modification of an interim
order, the Court or Arbitral Tribunal would be guided by the principles set out
in Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, for grant
of relief, as the situation may require, the Court/ Tribunal can also be guided
2
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., AIR (2007) SC 2563.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Nimbus Communication Ltd. vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India on 2 December, 2016
Nimbus Communication Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India, 2012 (4) ARB L.R. 113 (Bom).
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Dda vs Naveen Kumar on 15 March, 2022
c) In the absence of any enabling provisions under the under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitral Tribunal had no
power to allow the 2022 Application. On this aspect, she placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Development
Authority v. Naveen Kumar.1
1