The Delhi High Court stated that it cannot use its authority under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India when the orders from Arbitral Tribunals are about procedures

The Delhi High court was looking at a case that questioned an order from the Arbitral Tribunal related to ongoing arbitration. The order noted that an email was received after 7:35 p.m. from the Claimant’s Counsel, Ms. Akshita Katoch, asking for a delay, which resulted in no virtual link being sent for the hearing. It was mentioned that objections had been raised with the NCLT regarding the Respondent’s application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the case is set for a hearing soon. The order stated that “the matter is adjourned through virtual mode” and instructed the Respondent to provide the necessary link for the hearing. The Tribunal also mentioned it would look into “the feasibility of signing the Award, without pronouncing it,” while waiting for a decision on the Respondent’s application.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, sitting alone, mentioned that the Court cannot use its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for orders that are just procedural from the Arbitral Tribunals. The Arbitral Tribunal noted in its order that it would look into the possibility of signing the Award without making a formal announcement, which would be put on hold until a decision is made on the Respondent’s application. This case involves ongoing arbitration where the Claimant’s Counsel asked for a late adjournment, affecting the hearing schedule. At the same time, personal insolvency proceedings were started under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, creating a legal pause on all actions. Even with the insolvency situation, the Tribunal suggested it might sign the award without officially declaring it, leading to a court challenge against this order.

Cause Title: Lalit Mohan v. M/s National Agricultural Co. Federation of India Ltd.(NAFED) [W.P.(C) 13833/2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Mohit Chaudhary, along with Advocates Kunal Sachdeva, Prakhar Mithal, and Vaishali Shukla.
Respondent: Advocate Aaditya Vijay Kumar and Advocate Akshita Katoch.