The Delhi High Court has held that objection against enforcement of an Arbitral Award under Section-48 of Arbitration Act cannot be allowed in bits.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru while rejecting the arguement of the respondent in a petition filed in 2018 wherein it sought an opportunity to file its objection on merits, noted that the respondent cannot file its opposition in a piecemeal manner.
"The aforesaid contention is clearly unacceptable. The respondent cannot file its opposition in a piecemeal manner. It is seen that the present petition was filed in the year 2018 and has been pending since. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondent to file its objections, however, the respondent has limited its objection only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court."
The Counsel fo petitioner cited SC Ruling in Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra Vs. Union of India, 2019 Latest Caselaw 79 SC to submit that Section 48 of the Act does not envisage piecemeal consideration of the issue of maintainability of the execution case concerning the foreign awards, in the first place; and then the issue of enforceability thereof. The precedent was followed in GOVERNMENT OF INDIA vs. VEDANTA LIMITED, 2020 Latest Caselaw 510 SC, he mentioned.
The Counsel for Respondent in counter to the same, cited Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Rishima SA Investments LLC (Mauritius) & Anr and submitted that that the question of filing further objections under Section 48 of the A&C Act would only arise after the Court has decided the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction to enforce an award under Section 47 of the A&C Act.
The Court noted that the contention that it is permissible for the respondent to file its objections in a piecemeal manner is clearly unacceptable. The Court clarified that citation of Shristi Infrastructure (supra) is misplaced too.
"In that case, the Supreme Court had directed that the stage of filing of information in Form 16A be deferred after the Court had taken a decision regarding the jurisdiction to enforce the award. This was merely a direction to defer the stage of furnishing the list of assets against which an award could be enforced. The same is not an authority for the proposition that a party opposing enforcement of an award is entitled to file objections in multiple stages."
The Court remarking that there is no ground to grant further time to the respondent to file any objection on merits but in the interest of justice, the same can be done albeit on payment of cost. It thus allowed the prayings of the Respondent subject to the condition of depositing a sum of ₹1,00,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one week.
Inter-alia, the Court also allowed the petitioner is also at liberty to file a reply to the objections that may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
Read Order Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
