Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rameshkumar s/o Nathmal Chordiya, challenged an order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha, which allowed an application filed by respondent no.2, Kishorkumar s/o Nathmal Chordiya, seeking a stay of arbitration proceedings until the decision of Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2012. The respondent no.2 argued that his father had filed the civil suit to confirm partition of the property that was the subject matter of the arbitration and to set aside the award. The High Court examined the maintainability of the application. It noted that the application did not cite any specific provision under which it was made. During arguments, it was suggested that the application was under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court observed that Section 9 allows a party to apply for interim measures of protection, such as preservation or custody of goods, but does not empower the court to stay arbitral proceedings. The court held that the application per se was not maintainable. Even if the respondent no.2 was a party under Section 2(h) of the Act, the relief sought was beyond the scope of Section 9. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the District Court to proceed with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Maintainability of Application for Stay - Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Application for stay of arbitration proceedings pending decision of civil suit is not maintainable under Section 9 as the provision only provides for interim measures of protection, not stay of proceedings - The application per se was not maintainable as no provision was cited; even if invoked under Section 9, it does not empower the court to stay arbitral proceedings (Paras 4-5). B) Arbitration Law - Party Defined - Section 2(h) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The respondent no.2, being a party to the arbitration agreement, could invoke Section 9, but the relief sought (stay of proceedings) is not covered under Section 9 - The court held that the application was not maintainable and set aside the impugned order (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for stay of arbitration proceedings pending decision of a civil suit is maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge is set aside. The District Court is directed to proceed with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Application for stay of arbitration proceedings not maintainable under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent specific provisions
- Party must be defined under Section 2(h) of the Act to invoke Section 9
