2022 (11) TMI 1566 - SCH - IBC

Refusal to interfere under Section 11(6) upholds acceptance of joint development agreement termination and dismisses petition without merit comment

SC refused to interfere with the impugned order under the limited jurisdiction of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, recording the ... Limited jurisdiction of the Court while examining an application u/s 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- It is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, in view of the limited jurisdiction of the Court while examining an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is deemed appropriate to record the submission made by learned senior advocate for the petitioner that they accept termination of the Joint Development Agreement and that the law on the point when a resolution plan is approved is settled by the judgment of this Court in M/S. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. [2022 (3) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT]. The special leave petition is dismissed, without making any comments on the merits. While not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, the Court noted the limited jurisdiction when examining an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner accepted termination of the Joint Development Agreement and relied on the settled law that a resolution plan is approved as per 'M/S. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.', 2022 (6) SCC 343. The petitioner's statement accepting termination was recorded as it 'may be relevant while examining the question [of] proportionment of costs.' The special leave petition is dismissed 'without making any comments on the merits.' Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.