Vipul Ganda is an Independent Litigation Counsel with over 14 years of experience and a proven track record in Litigation and Dispute Resolution.
Nandini Bhatia Versus Navil Ratish Kadwadkar
Court / Forum : High Court of Delhi Citation : O.M.P. (I) 4/2020 Coram : Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar Subject : Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) Date of Decision : June 18, 2020
The present petition asserts that, the Respondent undertook to pay Rs. 1.25 lakhs per month, as maintenance to the Petitioner along with fees for the school education of the daughter of the Petitioner and the Respondent.
The Petitioner further states that, on October 17, 2019, an irrevocable family settlement was entered into, between the Petitioner and the Respondent, according to which an amount of Rs. 9.75 crores was payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner. As per clause 8 of the said family settlement disputes between the parties were referable for arbitration.
In light of the aforesaid facts, the present petition under section 9 of the 1996 Act was filed seeking payment of maintenance and to secure the amount in dispute by way of attachment of any moveable and/or immovable property(ies) worth Rs. 9.75 Crores.
It was argued that upon appointment of the arbitrator the petition would not be maintainable, in view of Section 9(3) of the 1996 Act and the petitioner would, if at all, have to move the learned sole arbitrator, under Section 17 of the 1996 Act.
Whether the present petition is maintainable in terms of section 9(3) of the 1996 Act if an arbitrator has been appointed?
It was noted by the Court that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator had agreed to consider the application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, if moved by the applicant. Therefore, the court held that no occasion arises for this Court to pass any order in the present proceedings, especially in view of the bar contained in Section 9 (3) of the 1996 Act, which reads thus:
Section 9. Interim measures, etc., by Court.
(3) Once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the Court shall not entertain an application under sub-section (1), unless the Court finds that circumstances exist which may not render the remedy provided under section 17 efficacious.