Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, AshokPalav Coop. Housing Society Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order dated 4 September, 2019 passed by the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal had rejected the petitioner's application under Section 17 of the Act seeking interim reliefs including a declaration that the respondents had no right over the property, a permanent injunction restraining them from entering or constructing on the plot, and a direction to demolish existing construction. The appeal was filed on 4 October, 2019 and was listed before a coordinate bench. The respondents were represented by Maniar Srivastava & Associates initially, but on the date of hearing they were not represented. The court noted that the matter was old and proceeded to hear the appellant. The appellant's counsel, Mr. H.V. Kode, argued that the arbitral tribunal had erred in rejecting the Section 17 application. However, the court observed that the scope of an appeal under Section 37 is limited and the court would not interfere with a discretionary order of the arbitral tribunal unless it is perverse or capricious. The court found no such error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The court also disposed of the interim application.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Appeal under Section 37 - Scope of Interference - The court held that the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and the court would not interfere with a discretionary order passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 unless the order is perverse, capricious, or based on no evidence. (Para 4) B) Arbitration Law - Interim Relief under Section 17 - Discretion of Arbitral Tribunal - The court held that the arbitral tribunal has wide discretion in granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appellate court should not substitute its own view unless the tribunal's decision is patently illegal or arbitrary. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 4 September, 2019 passed by the arbitral tribunal rejecting the appellant's application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 suffers from any error warranting interference under Section 37 of the Act.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the interim application.
Law Points
- Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- Scope of appeal under Section 37 is limited
- Interference with discretionary order of arbitral tribunal only if perverse or capricious
