Srs Investments Bengal Tiger Ltd vs Ravi Todi & Ors
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) No. 62 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning in this order is brief and rests on two points. First, the Tribunal declines to examine the legality of the arbitral award because the Appellant's stand is that the award is not being challenged in these proceedings, and an application under Section 34 against the award is already pending; the award's validity is therefore left for that forum. Second, the Appellant's submission that an order of status quo cannot affect an arbitral award in the absence of a stay is accepted in substance: the Tribunal clarifies that its order of status quo does not prevent the parties or any court from enforcing the award, if enforceable, and that it has neither deliberated on nor stayed the individual claims pending before it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
SRS Investments Bengal Tiger Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs
Ravi Todi & Ors. ....Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, Ms. Amee Rana, Ms. Avlokita Rajvi and Ms. Aishwarya Narayanan, - Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atanu Mukherjee, Ms. Srishti Govil, Advocates for Respondent No. 1 and 2. Mr. Aniket Bhattachryya, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 & 7. Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, Mr. Karan Khanna and Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondent No.4 and 6.
ORDER
18.05.2018: The Appellant - Claimant/ Holder of the award has preferred this appeal against order of status quo passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') on 22nd December, 2017 in a petition u/s 241 and 242 of Companies Act, 2013. According to learned counsel for the Appellant in absence of any stay of the award, the order of status quo cannot affect the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. There appears to be a dispute as to the date of initiation of arbitration. However, we are not deliberating on question of legality of the award in this appeal in view of the stand taken by the Appellant. An application under Section 34 is also pending against award.
-2- 3. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 1 & 2 (Petitioner before the Tribunal) submits that they have already made statement before the Tribunal that they are not challenging the arbitral award u/s 241 & 242 and referred to Para 50 at Page 93 of the appeal.
4. In view of the clear stand taken by Respondent 1 and 2 (Petitioner before the Tribunal), we make it clear that order of status quo will not come in the way of the parties or any court of law to enforce the award, if enforceable. We make it clear that we have not deliberated on individual claim of the parties which is pending before the Tribunal nor stayed the order of status quo. The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations. No costs.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial)
am/gc
Company Appeal (AT) No. 62 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free