Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 APRIL 2023

Arbitrator's Order Rejecting An Application For Impleadment Of A Party Does Not Constitute An ‘Interim Award'

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ("Delhi HC") in Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Sidharth Sethi
Sidharth Sethi
Pragya Chauhan
Pragya Chauhan
Rishabh Yadav
Rishabh Yadav
Author LinkedIn connections

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ("Delhi HC") in Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. v. Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. 1 held that the arbitrator's order rejecting an application for impleadment of a non-signatory party in the arbitration proceedings does not constitute an 'interim award' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") and can therefore not be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (as an application for setting aside arbitral award).

Brief Facts

  1. The buyer, Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. ("Appellant") and the seller, Panama Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. ("Respondent") entered into agreements for sale of certain windmill projects.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Decree Execution Under Order XXI CPC – An In-depth Insight

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Section 35(3) BNSS Notice Is The Rule, Arrest An Exception For Offences Up To 7 Years: Supreme Court

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated and strengthened the safeguards governing arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is the rule in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Vaish Associates Advocates
Vaish Associates Advocates
Article

The Limitation Clock On Money Recovery: Understanding Article 113, Acknowledgment And Extension Under Indian Law

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Services Sector Employment Rules Take Shape: Model Standing Orders, 2026 Under The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

On May 8, 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Model Standing Orders, 2026 (“Model Standing Orders 2026”) under Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”). The notification supersedes the earlier Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 insofar as they related to model standing orders, and prescribes separate model standing orders for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors.
IndiaEmployment and HR
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors