Courts Must Be Conscious Of Power Of Arbitral Tribunal While Exercising Discretion Under Section 9 Of The Arbitration Act: Gujarat High Court
Live LawSection 9 of the Arbitration Act envisages 'interim measures' and the Courts must not adjudicate a substantive issue at this stage, the Gujarat High Court has observed today. Thus, the two primary issues which were raised before the High Court were: whether the Commercial Court, in exercise of its power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, could have directed the EBTL to maintain a depth in the channel of 10 meters below the chart datum by way of an interim measure in favour of the AMNS? Contentions The Appellant ie, EBTL's contended that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 9 in directing EBTL to always maintain a channel depth of 10 metres. The High Court also affirmed the view taken in Kiritkumar Futarmal Jain vs Valencia Corporation judge ment : "once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for interim measures either before or during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings and such remedy is exhausted, similar interim measures cannot be claimed before the arbitral tribunal under sub-section of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act as the same may give rise to a situation where there would be simultaneously two orders in existence in respect of the same cause of action; one, that may be passed by the court, and another, that may be passed by the arbitral tribunal."