#consent award

Bombay High Court rules that a Court Receiver appointed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be discharged without first adjudicating substantive disputes arising from a Consent Award, even after 23 years of custody. The decision underscores that equitable considerations override procedural delays in property disputes under arbitration.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Court Receiver appointed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act remains in equitable custody until the substantive dispute between the parties is finally settled, regardless of a subsequent consent award. This ensures asset preservation aligns with the arbitration’s ultimate outcome, affecting parties relying on interim receiverships in complex partnership or property disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that an indemnity obligation under a consent award is enforceable upon any liability imposed by a forum, such as a court-ordered deposit, without waiting for final appellate confirmation. This interpretation invalidates judicial delay tactics and reinforces strict adherence to contractual indemnity clauses in commercial disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that an indemnity clause in a consent award becomes enforceable immediately upon crystallisation of liability, without awaiting final judicial confirmation. This decision clarifies that parties cannot delay indemnity payments under arbitration awards, impacting commercial dispute resolutions involving indemnity contracts.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that when landowners explicitly consent to negotiated compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, authorities cannot impose a general acquisition award. This sets a binding precedent that procedural fairness and party autonomy override standard acquisition protocols, directly impacting all KIADB-led land projects in Karnataka.

Bombay High Court rules that once a consent award under land acquisition is executed via registered sale deed, writ petitions under Article 226 cannot reopen compensation claims. Disputes over coercion, land classification, or valuation must be adjudicated in civil courts with proper evidence recording, reinforcing contractual finality in land acquisition proceedings.