R RAGHAVAN Vs. R VENKITAPATHY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.R.Vijaya Narayan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (Caveator), Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Mr.S.Elambarathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the common order dated 22.09.2015 in A.No.2708 of 2014 in A.No.274 of 2015 in O.P.No.269 of 2014. The petitioner filed the said Application in A.No.2708 of 2014, for grant of stay of further proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to the interim award, dated 15.03.2011, with regard to the firm (Dinamalar) pending disposal of the O.P.No.269 of 2014. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the stay petition primarily on the ground that the interim award having been put to challenge by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), it become in-executable and the parties having entered into a settlement which was recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are bound to proceed with the arbitration in terms of the agreement, which was recorded and there cannot be any interdict in such arbitral proceedings.

(3.) We may at the very outset point out that if the parties resort to filing applications which would interdict the arbitral proceedings before the Tribunal, the very purpose of referring the matter to arbitration would stand defeated. Section 5 of the Act deals with 'extent of judicial intervention', the provision state that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in Part I. Thus Section 5 brings out clearly the object of the Act, namely, that of encouraging resolution of disputes expeditiously and less expensively and when there is an arbitration agreement the Courts intervention should be minimal (see I.P.Anand Gajapathi Raju vs. P.V.G.Raju, 2000 4 SCC 539). Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs. U.P. Electronic Corpn. Ltd., 2007 7 SCC 737, has pointed out that the main objectives of the Act is to make provision for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and can be of meeting, the needs of the specific arbitration and to minimise the supervisory role of Courts in the arbitral process and to permit an Arbitral Tribunal to use other modes of settlement of dispute such as Mediation, Conciliation etc.