Multiplicity of proceedings defeats the purpose of alternate dispute resolution: Delhi high court- (Blog)
Introduction
As of late, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
Gammon India Ltd. what's more, Anr. v. National Highways Authority of India,
had the event to opine on the scourge of variety of arbitral procedures while
managing a request under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 wherein the protests raised were fundamentally founded on the discoveries
of a resulting grant. In managing the issues under the watchful eye of it, the
Court returned to different legal points of reference while setting out the
standards to be viewed as while alluding numerous debates emerging out of a
similar consent to mediation.
Factual
Matrix
An agreement was gone into between Gammon
Atlanta JV, a Joint Venture of Gammon India Limited and Atlanta Limited and
National Highway Authority of India on December 23, 2000 for specific attempts
to be completed concerning augmenting of a specific segment of a national
expressway. The undertaking was to be finished by January 14, 2004. Different
debates entomb alia as for delay in execution of the undertaking and
encumbrances on the land emerged between the gatherings under the agreement
during the execution of the venture.
Judgment
The Court talked about different arrangements
of the Act which imagines that debates can be raised at various stages and that
there can be numerous discretions about a solitary agreement. In doing as such,
the Court noticed that where such debates manage covering issues, assortment
ought to be maintained a strategic distance from.
While examining different types of variety of
procedures, the Court depended upon a progression of decisions. Setting
dependence on Dolphin Drilling Ltd. v. ONGC, the Court reaffirmed that all
questions that are in presence when the discretion statement is conjured,
should be raised and alluded without a moment's delay. The Court additionally
opined that even though there is no uncertainty that different interventions
are reasonable, it would be totally in opposition to open strategy to allow
gatherings to raise assets according to their own comfort.
Thinking about Order II Rule 2 of the
CPC,1908, and Section 10 and 11, the Court held that the standards of res
judicata additionally apply to arbitral procedures. Subsequently, it is
impermissible to permit professes to be raised at any stage and alluded to
different arbitral courts, now and then bringing about a variety of procedures
and furthermore conflicting honors.
Accordingly, the Court presumed that in regard
to a specific agreement or a progression of agreements that dilemma the gatherings
in a legitimate relationship, the undertaking consistently should be to make
reference to a solitary arbitral council.
Conclusion
The Court, through this judgment, has given
genuinely necessary clearness on the issue of variety in arbitral procedures
while reaffirming that the essential motivation behind discretion is that of
being a financially savvy and effective methods for interchange debate goal.
Gatherings should remember that despite the fact that the Act may allow summon
of different interventions under a similar understanding, any abuse of such a
remittance may not be taken a gander at merciful by the courts.
Comments
Post a Comment