Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Amci Pty Ltd & Anr on 1 September, 2011
He next relies on a judgment reported in 2016-2-L.W.342 M/s.
Samson Maritime Ltd. Vs M/s. Hardy Exploration & Production
(India) Inc., on the point that once a decree is made by a Court, the
decree itself imposes a mandate on the judgment-debtor to honour the
decree and that the decree-holder is entitled to call upon the judgment-
debtor to furnish security and attach the properties of the judgment-
debtor. He relies on a judgment reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del
3689 : (2011) 3 Arb LR 502 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs AMCI
PTY Ltd. & Anr.) for the proposition that there is no bar to seeking
interim protection subsequent to making of the Award even if such
rights had not been pressed by a petitioner before publishing of the
Award in a Court. In that case, the respondent was directed to furnish
security within a certain time frame in a post-Award scenario on the
basis of a prima facie case made out that there was every likelihood of
the enforcement proceeding being rendered infractuous unless such
security was furnished.
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S Sterling & Wilson Electricals Pvt. ... vs M/S Silicon Graphics Systems (India) ... on 4 May, 2009
The next point submitted by Counsel is that the three applications
are premature as the petitioner is seeking to entirely by-pass the
execution process as provided for under Section 36 of the Act. He relies
8
on a Delhi High Court decision reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1268
: (2009) 159 DLT 634 (Sterling &Wilson Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd.) wherein it was held that
an Award become inexecutable once a challenge to the same has been
filed under Section 34 of the Act. In the decision, the Delhi High Court
refused to direct the respondent to deposit the awarded amount in Court
in view of an application for setting aside of the Award having been filed.
It is also submitted by Counsel that the reliance placed by Mr.Kapur on
Section 36 or the proviso under Sub-Section (3) is misplaced since the
proviso would only apply in the case of an application filed under sub-
Section (2) of Section 36 for stay of operation of the Arbitral Award. The
proviso therefore, would only apply if the respondent had made an
application for stay of the Award. However, the main point urged by
Counsel in defence of the applications is that the respondent still has
time to challenge the Awards and if reliefs as prayed for in the
applications are granted, nothing would remain to be decided in the
Section 34 application. Mr. Banerjee submits that the respondent is
financially viable and has obtained good commercial ratings in terms of
its business efficacy.
1