Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the said case (Sai Babu vs. Clariya Steels Pvt. Ltd.), the arbitrator terminated the proceeding u/s 32 of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, on the ground the arbitral tribunal finds that the continuation of the proceedings has for any other reason become unnecessary or impossible. Later on the said arbitrator allowed the application by one of the parties seeking the remedy to recall the order of terminating the proceedings. The ‘recall’ by the arbitrator was challenged before the Karnataka High Court and dismissed subsequently.
The said appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and the bench consisting of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran referred to the judgment (SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited v. Tuff Drilling Private Limited.) observed that
"It is clear, therefore, that a distinction was made by this Court between the mandate terminating under section 32 and proceedings coming to an end under section 25. This Court has clearly held that no recall application would, therefore, lie in cases covered by section 32(3)."
The Court observed the said judgment SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited, has been reproduced by the bench in present case to hold that the termination under Section 32 cannot be recalled. Thus the judgment of Karnataka High Court was set aside.
86540
103860
630
114
59824