Challenge to Arbitral Award on Valuation Grounds: Court Considers Admission and Unconditional Stay. A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act questions an award's reliance on an unproven valuation report, citing procedural lapses and natural justice violations.

Sub Category: Bombay High Court
  • 8
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petition challenges an arbitral award dated November 23, 2023, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award directed the petitioner to pay the respondents Rs. 65,72,558/- after adjusting for their claim of Rs. 59,97,210/-. The petitioner contends the award is based on an unproven valuation report and alleges procedural lapses. The court considers whether to admit the petition and grant an unconditional stay.

Introduction and Petition Details

Filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Challenges part of the arbitral award dated November 23, 2023.

Facts Narrated by the Petitioner

Loan Agreement details and terms. Execution of Demand Promissory Note and Deeds of Guarantee. Hypothecation of assets. Occurrence of default and invocation of arbitration.

Arbitration Proceedings Timeline

Statements of Claim and Counter Claims. Various arbitration meetings and communications. Sale of assets and valuation disputes. Substitution of parties.

Petitioners' Grounds for Challenge

Counter claim barred by limitation. Arbitrator's reliance on unproven valuation report. Procedural lapses and lack of proper opportunity to respond. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Respondents' Submissions

Support for the arbitral award. Reference to legal precedents and procedures.

Court's Preliminary Observations

Findings of the arbitrator regarding sale of assets and valuation. Reliance on an unproven valuation report amounts to patent illegality. Petitioners' failure to file a reply to the counter claim not an admission of allegations.

Legal Context and Judgements Cited

Reference to Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Judgements cited by respondents. Analysis of procedural requirements and legal precedents.

Conclusion and Court's Decision on Admission and Stay

Need for oral evidence to prove the valuation report. Admittance of the petition on grounds of patent illegality. Consideration of unconditional stay based on legal provisions.

Issue of Consideration: CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Versus M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. Ors

2024 Lawtext (BOM) (6) 134

I.A. (L) NO.6246 OF 2024 IN COMM. ARBITRATION PETITION (L)NO.5565 OF 2024

2024-06-13

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.

Mr. Ranjeev Carvahlo with Ms. Aaushi Doshi and Mr. Deep Dighe i/b. DS Law, for the Applicant/ Petitioner. Mr. Aditya Shiralkar with Ms. Garima Mehrotra and Mr. Satish Desai, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Ors.

M/s. SAR Parivahan Pvt. Ltd. Ors

Related Judgement
High Court Challenge to Arbitral Award on Valuation Grounds: Court Considers Admission and ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Awards. Limited Scope for Challenge Under Arbitr...