Latest News

Bharat Foundry & Engg. Works & Ors. Vs. Intec Capital Ltd.

Bharat Foundry & Engg. Works & Ors. Vs. Intec Capital Ltd.

Facts of the Case

There are four applications under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 in question requesting a stay finding that the petitioner has come to hear of the passage of the arbitration award after getting a note of the execution hearing there's a lag of just Six days since that date due to the age and sickness of the plaintiff No.2 and 3. The same would be firmly criticized by the respondent's lawyers. As far as the calculation of the limited time is concerned, the date of receipt of the final award is to be taken into consideration, so if the service of the aforementioned award is to be agreed upon the prosecution will have to be undertaken by taking testimony from both sides on the grounds of the contested details, which would prolong the disposition of the current petitions and may not be convenient.


The plaintiffs argued that they had not issued any indication of commencement of the arbitration hearings, the selection of an arbitrator, or the awarding of the award, but that the judgments in question had been handed down ex-parte; thus, the issue at hand of the court was to interpret whether all applications ought to be set aside for not allowing the plaintiff the chance to address their case. The same Arbitrator had been the Arbitrator in two previous cases between the same parties and the issue also encompassed whether or not should the arbitrator have had disclosed this fact to the parties or not.

The judgment of the Court

The Hon'ble District Court held that when the Arbitrator has already been named as Arbitrator in two earlier cases among the same entities, the Arbitrator has to make a valid disclosure declaration setting out the specifics of the prior two Arbitration matters and the inability to do so leads to a breach of Entry No.22 of the Fifth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The point put forward by the Counsel for the defendant that the challenge to the validity of Section 12 might've been presented only in the process of the arbitral process and not in the current case under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is baseless, bearing in mind that as provided for in Section 12 of that same Act, the arbitral tribunal involved was obliged to make the declaration period. Had the facts been revealed, they may have been questioned in connection with Section 13 of that same Act, although in the present case, as the arbitrator involved did not reveal the evidence, i.e. his appointment as an arbitration panel in two past case laws, the plaintiffs didn't have the chance to hear about such a significant fact 


This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. 

  • Bharat Foundry & Engg. Works & Ors. Vs. Intec Capital Ltd.
  • Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
  • Arbitration

BY : Krish Jain

All Latest News