{"id":54032,"date":"2016-06-30T18:02:40","date_gmt":"2016-06-30T12:32:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=54032"},"modified":"2016-08-20T15:04:35","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T09:34:35","slug":"term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Dealing with the question relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 with reference to its applicability to Arbitral proceedings, the bench of Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, JJ held that the Arbitral Proceedings do not come under the expression \u201cother proceedings\u201d of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act and hence, the ban imposed under the said Section 69 can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.<\/p>\n

Interpreting S. 69 of the Partnership Act, the Court held that in order to attract the said Section, first and foremost the pending proceeding must be a suit instituted in a Court and in that suit a claim of set off or other proceedings will also be barred by virtue of the provision set out in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 as specifically stipulated in sub-section (3) of the said Section. Having regard to the manner in which the expressions are couched in sub-section (3), a claim of set off or other proceedings cannot have independent existence. In other words, the foundation for the application of the said sub-section should be the initiation of a suit in which a claim of set off or other proceedings which intrinsically connected with the suit arise and not otherwise.<\/p>\n

Rejecting the contention that an Arbitral proceeding can be equated to a Civil Court Proceeding, the Court took notice of the Sections 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that Section 36 of the 1996 Act only creates a statutory fiction which is limited for the purpose of enforcement of the Award. The deeming fiction is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court, exclusively for the purpose of execution, though as a matter of fact, it is only an Award of Arbitral proceeding. It is a settled proposition, that a statutory provision will have to be construed from the words that are expressly used and it is not for the Court to add or substitute any word to it. Therefore, going by Sections 35 and 36 of the 1996 Act it cannot be held that the entire Arbitral proceeding is a Civil Court proceedings for the purpose of applicability of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. [Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 624<\/a>, decided on 29.06.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: Dealing with the question relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 with reference to its applicability <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[3226,2526,7551],"class_list":["post-54032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-arbitration","tag-Interpretation","tag-partnership"],"yoast_head":"\nTerm \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings | SCC Times<\/title>\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\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: Dealing with the question relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 with reference to its applicability\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-06-30T12:32:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T09:34:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 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\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/\",\"name\":\"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-30T12:32:40+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T09:34:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings | SCC Times","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\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings","og_description":"Supreme Court: Dealing with the question relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 with reference to its applicability","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-06-30T12:32:40+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T09:34:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/","name":"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2016-06-30T12:32:40+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T09:34:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/30\/term-other-proceedings-under-s-693-of-the-partnership-act-1932-does-not-include-arbitral-proceedings\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Term \u201cOther proceedings\u201d under S. 69(3) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not include Arbitral Proceedings"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":276114,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/26\/arbitration-proceedings-by-unregistered-partnership-firms\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":0},"title":"Arbitration Proceedings by Unregistered Partnership Firms","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Kumar Bhaskar*","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-165-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-165-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-165-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-165-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/MicrosoftTeams-image-165-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276868,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/05\/prayer-for-appointment-arbitrator-cannot-rejected-ground-vague-bereft-of-material-particulars-gujarathighcourt-legal-update-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":1},"title":"Gujarat High Court | Notice for appointment of arbitrator cannot be rejected on ground of vague material particulars","author":"Editor","date":"November 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Gujarat High Court: While deciding the instant petition, Aravind Kumar, C.J., said that the prayer for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (\u2018A&C\u2019) Act, 2016 cannot be rejected on the ground that it is vague or bereft of the material particulars as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Gujarat High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-259.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-259.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-259.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-259.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/MicrosoftTeams-image-259.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257179,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/17\/relief-under-s-9-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":2},"title":"Relief under S. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Can it be granted to a party who is not party to arbitration agreement? Read Utt HC\u2019s ruling","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Emphasizing on the purpose and object of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Division bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and Alok Kumar Verma, J., held that, A person not a party to an arbitration agreement cannot invoke jurisdiction of the Court for interim\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":222603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/27\/section-87-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-struck-down-heres-why\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":3},"title":"Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 struck down. Here’s why","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has held that Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14. Section 87 as introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 states that\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\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282502,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/26\/supreme-court-parties-can-adduce-evidence-or-additional-evidence-in-proceedings-under-section-34-of-arbitration-act-if-strong-exceptional-case-is-made-ou\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court| Pre-amended Section 34(2)(a) shall be applicable on arbitration proceedings commenced and concluded prior to amendment of 2019","author":"Editor","date":"January 26, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits\/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and\/or produce contrary evidence.","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\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-6-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":242340,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/16\/del-hc-order-of-termination-of-arbitration-under-s-322c-a-challenge-under-s-14a-maintainable-read-full-report\/","url_meta":{"origin":54032,"position":5},"title":"Del HC | “Order of Termination of Arbitration under S. 32(2)(c), A&C Act is not an award; challenge under S. 14(a) maintainable”: Read full Report","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. held that an order of the arbitrators terminating the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (\"A&C Act\") is NOT an \"award\"; and therefore a challenge to such order under Section 14(1)(a) is maintainable. Facts and Issue The petitioner,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54032","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54032\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}