Case Note & Summary
The dispute arises from a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 22.12.2003 between Dilip Timblo (appellant) and Prashant Timblo (respondent). The appellant alleged wrongful termination of the SPA and invoked the arbitration clause, leading to reference to an Arbitral Tribunal on 29.05.2005. During the proceedings, the appellant filed two applications: one seeking approval to move court for production of documents, and another under Sections 19, 23, and 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for permission to file a fresh valuation report and for grant of time. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the second application by order dated 06.04.2017. The appellant challenged this order under Section 34 of the Act before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The court framed the issue whether the order dated 06.04.2017 is an 'interim award' susceptible to challenge under Section 34. The appellant argued that the order finally determined the issue of valuation evidence, thus constituting an interim award. The respondent contended that the order was merely interlocutory and not an interim award. The court analyzed the definition of 'interim award' under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 31(6) of the Act, and held that an interim award must finally determine a substantive issue between the parties. The impugned order merely rejected a procedural application for additional evidence and did not decide any substantive right or liability. Therefore, it was not an interim award and could not be challenged under Section 34. The court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, leaving it open for the appellant to raise the issue in a challenge against the final award.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Interim Award - Definition - Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 31(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The order dated 06.04.2017 rejecting the appellant's application for permission to file a fresh valuation report does not finally determine any issue and is merely an interlocutory order, not an interim award. Held that an interim award must finally decide a substantive issue between the parties, and the impugned order does not qualify as such (Paras 3, 10-12). B) Arbitration Law - Appealability - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Only a final award or an interim award that finally determines an issue can be challenged under Section 34. The impugned order being interlocutory, the appeal under Section 34 is not maintainable. Held that the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 3, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is an 'interim award' susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The order dated 06.04.2017 of the Arbitral Tribunal is not an interim award and cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant is at liberty to raise the issue in a challenge against the final award.
Law Points
- Interim award under Section 2(1)(c) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 must finally determine an issue
- order rejecting permission to file fresh valuation report is not an interim award
- Section 34 challenge only against final award or interim award that finally determines substantive rights
- interlocutory orders not appealable under Section 34.
