Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 5 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional validity of Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Validity of repeal (with effect from 23.10.2015) of Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - sum awarded as arbitral award - repayment of pending dues - the Petitioner sought interim reliefs from this Court for the repayment of the said amounts from the Respondent PSUs, so as to enable it to repay its pending dues to its own operational creditors. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the rival contentions makes it clear that there is a factual dispute between the parties relating to: (I) the exact quantum of the arbitral-awards in favour of the Petitioner company due from the Respondent PSUs; (II) the amounts which may have already been paid and/or deposited by the Respondent PSUs in favour of the Petitioner company under the said arbitral awards; and (III) whether stay orders of competent Courts were passed in respect of these arbitral awards, and if so, whether they were under the automatic-stay mode or not. It is settled law that when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court cannot embark on a detailed investigation of disputed facts - This Court cannot, therefore, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution undertake a detailed investigation to determine the status of monies paid/deposited pursuant to arbitral-awards in favour of the Petitioner company. Consequently, no directions in respect thereof can be made in the present proceedings. A look at the circular dated 05.09.2016 shows that the scheme is in order that the hardship felt by the construction sector, thanks to the automatic-stay regime under Section 36 as originally enacted, be mitigated. It can thus be seen that the scheme is so that the construction sector can get the fruits of arbitral awards in their favour, which otherwise was not available at the time under the law. Dr. Singhvi’s client was free to avail of the circular on its terms, or not to avail of the said circular. Having availed of the benefit contained in the circular, it is not possible for his client to now turn around and state, years after availing this benefit, that one part of the circular is onerous and should be struck down. Petition disposed off.
|