Swatika Jain Vs. Asian Hotels North Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (14 Aug 2023)

Power of Arbitral Tribunal to pass appropriate orders of interim measures is not eclipsed simply on account of any application being filed under Section 13 of Arbitration Act

MANU/DE/5221/2023

Arbitration

Present application has been filed seeking setting aside of the order and restoration of appeal.It is submitted that during the pendency of the application under Section 13 before the concerned Arbitrator, the said Arbitrator ought not to have considered/disposed of the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) till the controversy regarding alleged bias was resolved.

There is simply no justification for the Appellant to insist that a separate dispensation should be provided to the appellant at variance with the interim arrangement prescribed by the Supreme Court in the context of similarly placed persons. It is noted that vide order dated 13th January, 2023, it was specifically directed by the Supreme Court that the respective appellants in those cases shall remove their good lying in the premises in question. Thus, the distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant on the assertion that in the present case the appellant's goods are lying in the shop in question, whereas this was not so in the case/s before the Supreme Court, is incorrect.

The power and duty of the Arbitral Tribunal to pass appropriate orders of interim measures in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act is not eclipsed or denuded simply on account of any application being filed under Section 13 of the Arbitration Act by any of the parties. The order dated 31st May, 2023 was a consent order and the attempt on the part of the Appellant to resile out of the same is not bonafide.

This court expresses its dismay at the attempt of the Appellant to seek to re-agitate the same issue/s which stood foreclosed by the order dated 31st May, 2023, by seeking to blame the counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant on that day. The law does not permit a litigant to resile out of concessions or factual statements made before a court during the course of the proceedings. In Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet v. Noor Ahmed Shariff, the Supreme Court has held that a concession made by a counsel on a question of fact is binding on the client. Application dismissed.

Tags : ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL POWERS INTERIM MEASURES