You are on page 1of 8

Morgan Securities

v.
Modi Rubber
(2006) 12 SCC 642

Relevant Facts
Appellant

Rs. 5 crore

Responde
nt
Defaulted on
payment

Arbitration clause in the contract was invoked.


Award made in favor of the Appellant to the
sum of Rs. 6 cr.

Meanwhile

Appellant appealed
to the HC to wind
up the co.

HC: restrained the


R co. from dealing
with or
encumbering
assets without the
permission of the
Court

An application was filed by R co. before the Board u/S.19-A r/w S.22
of SICA- permission to dispose of certain shares.
Application was dismissed by the Court on account of Court orders.
Contention arose regarding the legality of the order.
A writ petition was filed before the Delhi High Court, which allowed
the said writ petition.

Issue
o Whether the provisions of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996


would prevail over the provisions of
the SICA?

o S.5: Extent of judicial intervention

o S.34: Application for setting aside arbitral

award

o S.36: Enforcement

S.5: Judicial Authority


o Not defined in the 1996 Act
o S.5 of the Arbitration Act has limited

application aiming at the extent of


judicial intervention
o It includes courts, institutions

performing judicial functions and


quasi-judicial authorities

S.34; S.36
o Under the 1940 Act: an award was

required to be made a rule of the Court to


make it enforceable.
o Under the 1996 Act: Once an application
challenging an award is filed, the
enforceability of the award is suspended.
However, the instant such objection is
rejected or the maximum period in which
such application is filed is rejected, the
award becomes enforceable.
o S.36: states that an award may be
enforced as though it is a decree.

Holding
The provisions of the Arbitration Act
will not prevail over those of the SICA.