#arbitration proceedings

The Bombay High Court has ruled that while Section 9 permits interim preservation of assets through contractual lien, it cannot be used to effect a final disposal like public auction - such remedies require a full adjudication by the arbitral tribunal. This clarifies a critical boundary for businesses relying on lien clauses to recover dues, preventing premature asset liquidation before rights are formally decided.

The Bombay High Court has ordered a respondent in arbitration to disclose all movable, immovable, bank, and demat assets, and appointed a Court Receiver to take symbolic possession of unattached properties. This sets a new benchmark for asset preservation, ensuring claimants aren't left remedy-less when respondents conceal or dissipate assets before arbitration concludes.

Bombay High Court holds that arbitral awards passed unilaterally without consent or court order under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act are void ab initio. The court quashed the award and permitted fresh arbitration proceedings, excluding the limitation period, setting a precedent for invalidating ex parte arbitral appointments.

Bombay High Court rules that a prima facie breach of an Agreement for Sale disentitles petitioners from interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. The court dismissed the petition seeking stay on a redevelopment agreement, emphasizing the necessity of contractual compliance for interim protection.

Bombay High Court at Goa holds that Section 12 of Arbitration Act, 1996 does not apply to proceedings commenced under the 1940 Act; mere prior employment does not establish bias without evidence.

Bombay High Court holds that interim relief under Section 9 cannot override third-party operations already underway; damages suffice where monetary compensation is adequate.

Delhi High Court holds that filing petitions based on forged documents and false affidavits constitutes deliberate falsehood in judicial proceedings, triggering criminal liability under Section 340 CrPC.