Limited Scope of Interference under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Financial Dispute

110
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration proceedings, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an Arbitral Award in a financial dispute involving Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd and Gunocean Inc. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019, which had directed the appellants to pay substantial sums with interest and costs to the respondent.

The judgment, pronounced on January 23, 2024, emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. The Court observed, “Under Section 34 of the Act, scope of interference by the courts is very limited and only if there is any patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, then only it is required to be touched upon” (Para 35). This statement highlights the judiciary’s respect for the arbitration process and its outcomes, provided they adhere to legal standards and public policy.

The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties, involving financial transactions and commission payments. The appellants, Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd, and its directors faced allegations of defaulting on payments as per the MoU. Responding to these allegations, the appellants contended that the MoU was forged, and the Arbitral Award violated public policy. However, these claims were dismissed by the Court, which found no evidence of forgery or violation of public policy norms.

The respondent, Gunocean Inc., accused the appellants of habitual defaulting and making false averments. The Court noted the appellants’ history of legal troubles and found no merit in their challenge to the Arbitral Award.

This decision is a testament to the Indian judiciary’s approach towards arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution. By limiting its intervention to cases of patent illegality, the Court has sent a strong message about its commitment to uphold the decisions made within the arbitration framework, respecting the autonomy of the arbitration process.

 Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

ARJUN MALL RETAIL HOLDINGS PVT LTD & ORS. VS  GUNOCEN INC.

Download Judgment

Share: