LPA AGAINST THE JUDG­MENT OF THE SIN­GLE JUDGE IN AN IN­TER­NA­TIONAL AR­BI­TRA­TION MAT­TER IS MAIN­TAIN­ABLE BE­FORE THE DI­VI­SION BENCH

Libertatem Magazine - - From The Courtroom -

Case - Arun Dev Upad­hyaya v. In­te­grated Sales Ser­vice Ltd, 2016 SCC On­line SC 1053, de­cided on 30.09.2016

The Apex Court in Arun Dev Upad­hyaya v. In­te­grated Sales Ser­vice Ltd held that an ap­peal against the de­ci­sion of sin­gle judge in an in­ter­na­tional ar­bi­tra­tion mat­ter is ap­peal­able to the Di­vi­sion Bench. In the in­stant case the ques­tion be­fore the court was whether an ap­peal against the judg­ment of the Sin­gle Judge in an in­ter­na­tional ar­bi­tra­tion mat­ter is ap­peal­able to the Di­vi­sion Bench or to put it oth­er­wise, whether the in­tra-court ap­peal would lie be­cause of the Letters Patent, the Court held that such ap­peal is main­tain­able and has to be treated as an ap­peal un­der Sec­tion 50(1) (b) of the Ar­bi­tra­tion and Con­cil­i­a­tion Act, 1996 and has to be ad­ju­di­cated within the said pa­ram­e­ters.

Re­ject­ing the ar­gu­ment that the Letters Patent Ap­peal was not avail­able in ar­bi­tra­tion mat­ters and Sec­tion 13 of the Com­mer­cial Courts, Com­mer­cial Di­vi­sion and Com­mer­cial Ap­pel­late Di­vi­sion of the High Courts Act, 2015, the Court held that Sec­tion 13 of the 2015 Act bars an ap­peal un­der Letters Patent un­less an ap­peal is pro­vided un­der the 1996 Act. Such an ap­peal is pro­vided un­der Sec­tion 5 of the

2015 Act where a fo­rum is cre­ated, i.e., Com­mer­cial Ap­pel­late Di­vi­sion. The Letters Patent Ap­peal could not have been in­voked if Sec­tion 50 of the 1996 Act would not have pro­vided for an ap­peal. But it does pro­vide for an ap­peal. Sec­tion 50(1)(b) of 1996 Act has not been amended by the 2015 Act that has come into force on 23.10.2015. Thus, an ap­peal un­der Sec­tion 50(1)(b) of the 1996 Act be­fore the Di­vi­sion Bench is main­tain­able.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.