In A Post Award Section 9 Application, The Court Cannot Comment On The Correctness Of The Arbitral Award: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award.The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not. FactsThe Court...
The Calcutta High Court has held that while hearing a post award application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, the Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the award.
The Division Bench of Justices I.P. Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury held that the Court would not adjudicate on whether the damages awarded in the arbitral award are correct or not.
Facts
The Court was hearing appeals against the order of the Single Bench dated wherein while hearing a post award Section 9 filed by the respondent, had directed the appellants to furnish information regarding their assets.
The Single Bench had observed that in a post award Section 9 application by the award holder, the Court must protect the fruits of the arbitral award.
The appellants challenged the order of the Single Bench on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application on behalf of the respondents and also that the Single Bench in the impugned order had made certain observations against the appellant, Mr. Damodaran, which are de hors the findings in the arbitral award.
Analysis by the Court
The Court noted that the impugned order dealt only with the issue of jurisdiction at a prima facie level. It observed that the order did not execute the award or take any coercive steps against the appellants, thus not affecting any valuable right of the appellants.
The Court further noted that the matter is scheduled for the next hearing before the Single Bench on 07.05.2024. It directed the Single Bench to treat the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The Court also refused to put a stay on the impugned order.
Regarding Mr. M. Damodran's appeal against certain findings by the Single Bench and the apportionment of damages to him, the Court clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to comment on the correctness of the award. It emphasized that it cannot decide whether the apportionment of damages awarded in favor of the appellant was correct or not. However, the Court directed the Single Bench to reconsider the allegations against the appellant without being influenced by any findings in the impugned order.
Case Title: Meleveetil Damodaran v. UpHealth Holdings Inc, AP-COM No. 490 of 2024
Date: 24.04.2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Siddhartha Datta, Mr. Aditya Mukherjee, Ms. Trisha Mukherjee, Mr. Krishna Tangirala, Mr. Chetan Kabra & Mr. Aditya Thyagaranjan, Advs.
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Mr. S.N. Mookherjee & Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Mr. Chayan Gupta briefed by P&A Law Office's team consisting of Mr. Anand S. Pathak, Mr. Vijay Purohit, Mr. Shivam Pandey, Mr. Anujit Mookherji, Mr. Anirudhya Dutta, Mr. Shyra Hoon, Mr. Siddhant Bajaj, Mr. Nav Dhawan, Mr. Naman Chowdhury & Mr. Sankit Jain, Advs.