Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making an award rule of the court are covered by the expression "suit for recovery of money" in section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
Analysis: The expression "suit" in section 22(1) was held to bear its ordinary meaning, namely a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint, as understood under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Proceedings under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 do not commence with a plaint or a petition in the nature of a plaint and therefore are not suits. The amended use of the word "suit" in section 22(1), contrasted with the broader word "proceedings" used elsewhere in the section, indicated a restricted legislative intent. The presence of subsection (5), dealing with limitation for enforcement of suspended rights, also supported the conclusion that the amendment was directed to civil suits and not arbitration proceedings. Further, an arbitral award falls within section 22(3), which separately empowers the Board to suspend operation of awards, and that specific treatment excludes awards from the scope of section 22(1).
Conclusion: Arbitration proceedings under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are not "suits for recovery of money" within section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and are not automatically stayed under that provision.