2016 (1) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s bearing FAO No. 10525 and 10507 of 2014, FAO No. 34 and 68 of 2015. FAO No. 10525 and 10507 of 2014 are against the dismissal of objections against the award dated 21.6.2010 whereas in FAO No. 34 and 68 of 2015, objections filed by the appellant has been dismissed for non-deposit of 75% of the amount as per provisions of Section 19 Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and objections filed by the respondents have been accepted and the matter has been remitted back to the arbitrator. Similar is the prayer with regard to the aforementioned FAOs, though they have been filed against the award dated 21.6.2010. Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that a sum of Rs. 15,52,089/- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the ratio decidendi culled out by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court that the objecting court has no power to remand the matter back to the arbitrator once the court has set aside the award is squarely applicable to the present case. It is not the case where the arbitrator has omitted to refer to certain claims so exception carved out in the aforementioned case of Bombay High Court could apply. The relevant portion of the judgment in Geojit Financial Services Limited's case (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- 14. Under sub-section 4 of Section 34, the Court is vested with the discretion, where it is appropriate and where the court is requested by a party, to adjourn the proceedings for a period of time. An adjournment i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e award. Once an award has been set aside, recourse cannot be taken to Section 34(4) since it is evident that the power can be exercised by the Court while adjourning a petition under Section 34. 15. The jurisdiction under Section 34(4) can be exercised in a manner which is strictly consistent with that provision. The equitable jurisdiction which the Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly inapposite when dealing with a petition under Section 34. The learned Single Judge has relied upon his earlier decision in Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad Munoti, Which seems to suggest that the Court has while setting aside an award a general power to remand the proceedings for reconsideration. We clarif....