The arbitration agreement contained in the receipt for the purchase of cold storage services indicated a particular person as the sole arbitrator in the event of a dispute. Subsequently, it turned out that this person as counselor for the respondent (Wadhwani) in a separate, unrelated case. With respect to the first issue, the Court, referring to the Delhi Supreme Court decision in Parasramka Holdings Private Limited v. Ambience Private Limited and another, CS (SO) No.125/2017, found that this party, which invokes the compromise clause, is not required to formally submit a specific request for prayer for the arbitration dispute as long as it raises an objection in the written statement that this appeal cannot be upheld under the compromise clause. The Delhi Supreme Court held that the scope of a court`s power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is not limited to parties to an arbitration agreement and the court may also be between branches against a third party. In addition, given that the distinction between the powers under section 9 of the Arbitration Act and section 17 of the Arbitration Act has a clear justification, the Tribunal has held that an arbitrator is a creature of contract between the parties and therefore cannot dare, outside of the contract, to instruct parties who are not parties to the arbitration agreement, but the same limitation does not apply to a court exercising its powers under Section 9 of the Arbitrators Act. It should be noted, however, that in the case of Prabhat Steel Traders Private Limited v. Excel Metal Processors Private Limited, Referee No. 619 of 2017, had a contrary view, but a review of Section 17(1) (ii) makes it clear that, under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, such interim measures can only be applied by one party to the Arbitration Tribunal and are specified in section 17, paragraph 1, point ii) (a) (e), but that in some cases these facilities may even affect third parties.
Referring to Minochar v. Deenyar Sheiar Jehani, the Delhi High Court found that the Narelief Referral is an aid for final relief and an applicant must take the case to an arbitration tribunal by making a dispute before a section 9 of the petition could be upheld. When two or more parties enter into a contract, the terms and conditions generally differ from one contract to another – unless otherwise stated and agreed to the contrary, all disputes that would result would be subject to the jurisdiction of the court under the Fairness of the Code of Civil Procedure. But if the contract in question contains a subsection arbitration; In essence, prior to the conclusion of an agreement, the two parties would have agreed that, in the event of a dispute arising from that agreement, the matter would be referred to an arbitration tribunal and not to a court in the traditional sense.
Comments are closed.