Bombay High Court Allows Withdrawal of Appeal in Arbitration Dispute Over Share Delivery — Respondent's Opposition on Grounds of Hardship Not Sustained. Court Permits Withdrawal Without Prejudice to Respondent's Rights Under the Award and Pending Proceedings.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 88
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging a judgment of a Single Judge dated 2 February 2005, which had upheld an arbitral award dated 13 December 2002 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of the National Stock Exchange. The award pertained to disputes arising out of the Rules, Byelaws and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange. The appellant, Rahul Bajaj, initially sought to withdraw the appeal on 25 February 2016. However, the first respondent, Mangal Keshav Securities Limited, opposed the withdrawal, contending that it would cause great hardship and injustice due to fluctuations in the market price of 11,000 shares of ARBL, resulting in financial losses of approximately Rs.13.48 crores. The respondent took out a Notice of Motion No. 1028 of 2016 to resist the withdrawal. During arguments, the respondent did not press the motion but continued to oppose the withdrawal. The court considered the submissions and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, but directed that the withdrawal shall not prejudice the rights of the first respondent under the award or in any pending proceedings. The court also clarified that the withdrawal would not affect the first respondent's right to recover amounts due under the award. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Notice of Motion was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Withdrawal of Appeal - Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Respondent's Opposition - The appellant sought to withdraw the appeal, but the respondent opposed on grounds of hardship due to price fluctuations of shares. The court allowed withdrawal but directed that the respondent's rights under the award and any pending proceedings shall not be prejudiced. Held that withdrawal of appeal does not automatically extinguish the respondent's rights, and the court can impose conditions to balance equities (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether an appellant can withdraw an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the respondent opposes such withdrawal on grounds of hardship and financial loss.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Notice of Motion disposed of. Withdrawal of appeal shall not prejudice the rights of the first respondent under the award or in any pending proceedings.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • can be opposed by respondent if it causes hardship or injustice
  • court may impose conditions to protect respondent's interests.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 60

APPEAL NO. 732 OF 2005 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 237 OF 2003

2016-07-15

Anoop V. Mohta, A.S. Gadkari

Ms. Sonal i/by Das Associates for the Appellant; Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, Mr. Astad Runderia, Mr. Mihir Nerurkar i/by Mulla & Mulla for Respondent No. 1 in Appeal and for the Applicant in Notice of Motion; None for Respondent No.2.

Rahul Bajaj

Mangal Keshav Securities Limited & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against judgment upholding arbitral award.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to withdraw the appeal; respondent opposed withdrawal.

Filing Reason

Appeal filed against Single Judge's order upholding arbitral award.

Previous Decisions

Single Judge's judgment dated 2 February 2005 upheld the arbitral award dated 13 December 2002.

Issues

Whether withdrawal of appeal should be allowed despite respondent's opposition on grounds of hardship and financial loss.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant sought withdrawal of appeal. Respondent opposed withdrawal, arguing that price fluctuations of shares would cause financial loss of Rs.13.48 crores and great hardship.

Ratio Decidendi

A party may withdraw an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, but the court may impose conditions to protect the respondent's interests if withdrawal would cause hardship or injustice.

Judgment Excerpts

The matter was listed at the instance of Appellant for withdrawal of the Appeal itself, on 25 February 2016. Respondent No.1, however, resisted/opposed even the withdrawal and therefore, sought time to file affidavit to show how the withdrawal would cause hardship and injustice to them.

Procedural History

Arbitral award dated 13 December 2002 passed by Arbitral Tribunal of National Stock Exchange. Single Judge upheld award on 2 February 2005. Appeal filed under Section 37. On 25 February 2016, appellant sought withdrawal. Respondent opposed and filed Notice of Motion No. 1028 of 2016. Court heard arguments and allowed withdrawal on 15 July 2016.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 37, Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Withdrawal of Appeal in Arbitration Dispute Over Share Delivery — Respondent's Opposition on Grounds of Hardship Not Sustained. Court Permits Withdrawal Without Prejudice to Respondent's Rights Under the Award and Pending P...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Writ Challenging Service Tax Demand and Section 35F Validity — Petitioner Relegated to Alternate Remedy of Appeal. Constitutional challenge to Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 not entertained as valid...