Full Text
Translation output
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EFA(OS)(COMM)1/2016
VIJAY SINGH MINOCHA Appellant
Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.with Mr Ashok Kr.Babbar,Mr Atul Babbar& Mr
Surinder Kumar Sharma,Advs.
EFA(OS)(COMM)1/2016
VIJAY SINGH MINOCHA Appellant
Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv.with Mr Ashok Kr.Babbar,Mr Atul Babbar& Mr
Surinder Kumar Sharma,Advs.
VERSUS
M/SSEINVESTMENTLTD . Respondent
Through: MrP.Nagesh,Adv.
Through: MrP.Nagesh,Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
19.01.2017
■This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 11.11.2016 which was passed inlA No.10978/2016 which in turn was an application filed on behalf of the appellants/
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
19.01.2017
■This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 11.11.2016 which was passed inlA No.10978/2016 which in turn was an application filed on behalf of the appellants/
ORDER
debtors praying that the enforcement petition being OMP
(EMF.) (COMM.) 35/2016 filed by the respondents be dismissed inasmuch as the judgment debtors/appellants have preferred a petition under Section 34 of
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the award dated
16.09.2015. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that since the award was passed prior to 23.10.2015, the amendments to Section 36 of the said Act would not be applicable. The learned single Judge relying on another decision delivered by him in OMP (I) (COMM) 23/2015 Raffles Desisn
InternationalIndiaPrivate LimitedandAm. v. Educomv ProfessionalEducation
Limited & Ors. decided on 07.10.2016, held that the amended provisions would apply and the mere filing of petition under Section 34 would not amount to automatic stay. In view of the said decision inRaffles Design (supra), the learned single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant.
2017:DHC:9094-DB © However, subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in FAO 221/2016
Ardee Infrastructure vs. Anuradha Bhatia decided on 06.01.2017 held that in cases where the award has been passed prior to 23.10.2015 the un-amended provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 would continue to apply.
This meantthat in those cases where Section 34 petitions are filed,it would resultin automatic stay of the enforcement of the awards till the disposal of the petitions under Section 34. The present appeal is entirely covered by our decision in Ardee
Infrastructure (supra) in favour of the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is allowed as aforesaid.
JANUARY 19,2017 ns BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J
2017:DHC:9094-DB
(EMF.) (COMM.) 35/2016 filed by the respondents be dismissed inasmuch as the judgment debtors/appellants have preferred a petition under Section 34 of
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the award dated
16.09.2015. The contention of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that since the award was passed prior to 23.10.2015, the amendments to Section 36 of the said Act would not be applicable. The learned single Judge relying on another decision delivered by him in OMP (I) (COMM) 23/2015 Raffles Desisn
InternationalIndiaPrivate LimitedandAm. v. Educomv ProfessionalEducation
Limited & Ors. decided on 07.10.2016, held that the amended provisions would apply and the mere filing of petition under Section 34 would not amount to automatic stay. In view of the said decision inRaffles Design (supra), the learned single Judge dismissed the application of the appellant.
2017:DHC:9094-DB © However, subsequently a Division Bench of this Court in FAO 221/2016
Ardee Infrastructure vs. Anuradha Bhatia decided on 06.01.2017 held that in cases where the award has been passed prior to 23.10.2015 the un-amended provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 would continue to apply.
This meantthat in those cases where Section 34 petitions are filed,it would resultin automatic stay of the enforcement of the awards till the disposal of the petitions under Section 34. The present appeal is entirely covered by our decision in Ardee
Infrastructure (supra) in favour of the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.
The appeal is allowed as aforesaid.
JANUARY 19,2017 ns BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J ASHUTOSH KUMAR,J
2017:DHC:9094-DB