{"id":280427,"date":"2022-12-27T10:00:46","date_gmt":"2022-12-27T04:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=280427"},"modified":"2022-12-28T17:25:43","modified_gmt":"2022-12-28T11:55:43","slug":"order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/b> In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> for appointment of a sole arbitrator for the resolution of disputes between the parties, a Single Judge Bench of V. Kameswar Rao, J. held that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT staying the institution of suits and proceedings after the resolution process was initiated under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> was similar to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC).<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The petitioner entered into a cost sharing agreement with Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for external development works for improvement of certain road networks in Gurgaon, Haryana. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into a separate contract agreement in 2012 with the respondent with a contract period of 24 months. The petitioner said the project could not be completed for various defaults and disputes arose in 2018 about certain works to be completed\/rectified by the respondent. Meanwhile, the Union of India in a petition under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> moved the NCLT praying for stay of institution and continuation of suits and other proceedings against IL&FS and its 348 Group Companies. The NCLT declined to grant relief and in appeal, the NCLAT in 2018 stayed the institution and continuation of suits and other proceedings against IL&FS and its 348 Group Companies. In 2021, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21<\/a> of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (Act) invoking the arbitration clause. The same was objected to by the respondent in 2021, stating that the invoking of arbitration was impermissible.<\/p>\n

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner<\/b><\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that there was no ‘unpaid operational debt<\/i>’ or any other debt recoverable under the IBC and therefore, the petitioner could not be termed to be an ‘operational creditor’. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ‘moratorium’ granted by the NCLAT was not a statutory moratorium under Section 14<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> and resolution was not being conducted under the IBC, but under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent<\/b><\/p>\n

The respondent stated that the present petition was not maintainable as the petition under Section 9<\/a> of IBC<\/a> was already pending before the NCLT. Further, it was stated that the respondent was a part of the IL&FS Group and was subject to a moratorium under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a>. Moreover, it was stated that the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act only after a lapse of 6 months from the deadline and therefore, it was evident that neither any claims nor any disputes had arisen between the parties and the claims had been raised by the petitioner only to counter blast the proceedings under Section 9<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>, initiated by the respondent.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court noted that the matter being lis pendens<\/i> before the Supreme Court, therefore, it was not for this Court to sit in appeal and comment on the veracity of the order passed by the NCLAT, specifically in a petition under Section 11 of the Act.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on APCO-Titan (JV)<\/i> v. National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.<\/i>, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10700<\/a>, wherein this Court had held that the suit therein would not be maintainable against a group company of IL&FS. The Court noted that the issue which arose for consideration was ‘whether arbitration was permissible with regards to petitioner’s claims arising in 2018 and 2020’<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on VIL Ltd.<\/i> v. IL&FS Transporation Networks<\/i>, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 3076<\/a>, wherein the High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that “Order passed by Appellate Tribunal under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a> was similar to the order passed under Section 14<\/a> of the IBC<\/a> providing declaration of moratorium, as prima facie the Appellate Tribunal had considered that it had wider power under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a>, than the power vested under provisions of the Code”<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The Court opined that “Order passed by the NCLAT was akin to an order of moratorium under Section 14<\/a> of the IBC<\/a>. The purpose and rationale behind granting a moratorium was to ensure that the assets of the corporate debtor were protected, with an intention to keep the company a going concern and to use the period to strengthen its financial position. It meant that the intent of the NCLAT was to protect the assets of IL&FS and its group companies to make resolution process effective\/purposeful”.<\/i><\/p>\n

Further, the Court held that “the NCLAT not just restrained continuance of suits or proceedings already instituted, but also the filing of fresh suits or proceedings. In other words, the order of stay\/moratorium prohibits the initiation of any proceedings, regardless of the period to which the claims in the proceedings pertain”<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

[DLF Ltd. v. IL&FS Engineering and Construction Co., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4509<\/a>, decided on 21-12-2022<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar;<\/p>\n

Advocate Dhruv Divan;<\/p>\n

Advocate Meghna Mishra;<\/p>\n

Advocate Ankit Rajgarhia;<\/p>\n

Advocate Tarun Mehta;<\/p>\n

For the Respondent: Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta;<\/p>\n

Advocate Kaushik Laik;<\/p>\n

Advocate Akshay Kaushik;<\/p>\n

Advocate Rudrakshi Deo;<\/p>\n

Advocate Abhishek Tiwari.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court ruled that the moratorium granted by the NCLAT, staying the institution of suits and proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, after the resolution process was initiated against it under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> of the Companies Act, 2013<\/a>, was akin to an order of moratorium passed under Section 14<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":279267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2998,3226,40741,17711,3460,31714,3174,30589,53863,53801,31387,26444,53862,22074,30182,3539,34910,12261,53861,53864],"class_list":["post-280427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Agreement","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-arbitrator","tag-claims","tag-companies-act-2013","tag-contract","tag-disputes","tag-group-companies","tag-haryana-urban-development-authority","tag-insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016","tag-interim-order","tag-maintenance-works","tag-moratorium","tag-national-company-law-appellate-tribunal","tag-National_Company_Law_Tribunal","tag-operational-creditor","tag-resolution","tag-separate-contract-agreement","tag-unpaid-operational-debt"],"yoast_head":"\nOrder of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-12-27T04:30:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-28T11:55:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"391\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"311\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/\",\"name\":\"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-12-27T04:30:46+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-28T11:55:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg\",\"width\":391,\"height\":311,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court | SCC Times","description":"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court","og_description":"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-12-27T04:30:46+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-28T11:55:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":391,"height":311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/","name":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","datePublished":"2022-12-27T04:30:46+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-28T11:55:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a case where a petition was filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","width":391,"height":311,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/27\/order-of-stay-moratorium-under-the-companies-act-2013-prohibits-the-initiation-of-any-proceedings-parties-cannot-be-referred-to-arbitration-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Order of stay\/moratorium under the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits the initiation of any proceedings; Parties cannot be referred to Arbitration: Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":242186,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/13\/cal-hc-s-116-arbitration-conciliation-act-1996-reiterating-independence-and-impartiality-of-the-arbitrator-court-appoints-former-justice-of-the-present-court-to-preside-over-as-the-sole-arbi\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":0},"title":"Cal HC | [S.11(6) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996] Reiterating independence and impartiality of the Arbitrator, Court appoints former justice of the present court to preside over as the sole arbitrator","author":"Editor","date":"January 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J., while allowing the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed former judge of the present High Court, Sahidullah Munshi as the sole arbitrator in the present matter. In the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292281,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/16\/delhi-high-court-dismisses-application-under-section-11-arbitration-act-in-view-of-moratorium-imposed-on-parent-company-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court dismisses petition under S. 11 Arbitration Act in view of moratorium imposed on parent company","author":"Arunima","date":"May 16, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh legal action for the same relief once the moratorium is lifted or varied.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282379,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/delhi-high-court-rules-reiterates-former-clause-to-prevail-over-latter-in-case-of-inconsistency-between-arbitration-clauses-in-an-agreement-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":2},"title":"[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument\/document\/deed","author":"Editor","date":"January 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6218,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/04\/arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-pt-i-or-pt-ii-doctrine-of-severability\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":3},"title":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Pt. I or Pt. II \u2014 Doctrine of severability","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 4, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Cases Reported in 2014 SCC Vol. 7 August 28, 2014 Part 4Law of substantive contract does not determine law of arbitration agreement\/lex arbitri. Parties are entitled to agree that law of one country would govern substantive contract and laws of another country would apply to arbitration agreement. Parties can also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Alternate Dispute Resolution"","block_context":{"text":"Alternate Dispute Resolution","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/alternate_dispute_resolution\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":301406,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/14\/arbitrator-fees-treated-as-preferential-payments-cirp-pending-before-nclt-madras-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":4},"title":"Arbitrator\u2019s fees to be treated as preferential payments even where CIRP proceedings are pending before NCLT: Madras High Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 14, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court said that if the Arbitrators are not paid their fees \/ costs on account of the moratorium order, the object of arbitration will get defeated, as competent Arbitrators will hesitate to become Arbitrators in a dispute involving Companies facing financial crisis.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298424,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/03\/mere-use-of-word-arbitration-or-arbitrator-not-enough-to-construe-an-arbitration-agreement-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":280427,"position":5},"title":"Mere use of word \u2018arbitration\u2019 or \u2018arbitrator\u2019 not enough to construe an agreement to be an arbitration agreement: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=280427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280427\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/279267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=280427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=280427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=280427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}