https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754355 The High Court reiterated that writ interference in arbitral matters is exceptionally limited and is warranted only where the arbitral order is perverse or shows patent illegality apparent on the face of the record. It further noted that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates in respect of the debt, not merely the debtor, so the arbitration claim cannot be split to continue against some parties while remaining suspended against others. On that basis, the moratorium in favour of the principal borrower and one guarantor extended to the arbitration claim as a whole, and the tribunal acted within jurisdiction in keeping the proceedings in abeyance. en-us Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Jun 2024 07:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754355 The High Court reiterated that writ interference in arbitral matters is exceptionally limited and is warranted only where the arbitral order is perverse or shows patent illegality apparent on the face of the record. It further noted that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code operates in respect of the debt, not merely the debtor, so the arbitration claim cannot be split to continue against some parties while remaining suspended against others. On that basis, the moratorium in favour of the principal borrower and one guarantor extended to the arbitration claim as a whole, and the tribunal acted within jurisdiction in keeping the proceedings in abeyance. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754355