TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant to the impugned order, it is necessary to set out relevant facts which are stated hereinafter. 3. The parties jointly participated in an auction conducted by Jammu & Kashmir Bank for auction of 550 marlas of land situated in Hoshiarpur, Punjab ('the Hoshiarpur Land'). The primary bid in respect of said land was made through respondent's firm M/s. Aastha Trading Company. A new entity, namely M/s. JMD Special Steel Pvt. Ltd., in which both the parties were directors, was utilized for funding and registration purposes. A loan of Rs. 4.30 crores was obtained from HDFC Bank by mortgaging various properties. A Tripartite Agreement dated 20.03.2013 was executed between the appellant, the respondent and HDFC Bank to regulate the loan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by both parties. On 10.02.2018, the respondent was granted a final opportunity to file his statement of claim, failing which the proceedings were liable to be closed. The respondent filed his claim on 16.03.2018, seeking recovery of Rs.4.16 crores. The appellant filed his statement of defence, followed by a rejoinder from the respondent. 7. On 13.05.2019, the respondent and his counsel failed to appear before the sole Arbitrator. Despite adjournment and a failed mediation attempt, the respondent ceased participation in the proceedings and, on 13.07.2019, sent an email to the sole Arbitrator alleging bias. Further, allegations were raised on 14.08.2019 along with an indication to appoint another arbitrator. The Arbitrator declined this re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 11. By the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, the High Court allowed the application and held that issue of res judicata need not be examined at the stage of Section 11 proceedings, leaving it to be decided by arbitral tribunal. The civil suit filed by the respondent seeking termination of the mandate of the Arbitrator was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.07.2024. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our consideration. 12. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent had abandoned the earlier arbitration proceedings and was, therefore, barred from seeking a fresh appointment of an Arbitrator. It is submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the claim or withdrawing the same without leave of the court, also becomes liable to pay such costs as may be imposed by the court as provided under Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the Code. This Court in HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd., (supra) dealt with the issue, whether a fresh application under Section 11(6) of the Act would be maintainable, when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted at the time of withdrawal of the first application under Section 11(6) of the Act. A two-Judge Bench of this Court held that principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code prohibiting the institution of fresh proceeding on the same cause of action without seeking leave of the court to file a fresh application, would apply to proceeding under Section 11(6) of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2009, was dismissed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide judgment dated 30.09.2009, and the validity of the auction was upheld. Thereafter, the owners approached this Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1599 of 2011. During the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the appellant and the respondent entered into three agreements on 02.04.2013. The respondent, during the pendency of the Civil Appeal filed by the owner of the land, invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice on 06.05.2015. The Civil Appeal preferred by the owners of the land was dismissed on 09.07.2021 by this Court. 19. It is pertinent to note that the issue, which was sub judice, was with regard to validity of the auction. The dispute between the appellant ....