KISHOR SHAH Vs. URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three Applicants ("the Shahs") suffered an arbitral Award dated 19th May 2019 (corrected on 13th August 2019) rendered unanimously by a three-member arbitral tribunal. The Shahs' challenge petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act , 1996 -- Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 1435 of 2019 -- is pending admission. The present Interim Application is under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. The Shahs seek a stay on the execution, implementation and enforcement of the Award.

(2.) The IA is delayed, but I am going to let that pass. Mr Chinoy for the Shahs has something of an explanation for the delay, to which Mr Andhyarujina for the contesting Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ("Urban") may have an equally arguable response, but I see no value in addressing this question. Matters such as these cannot, I believe, always be decided simply on the ground of delay.

(3.) Mr Chinoy's submission is that the Award is so utterly and egregiously perverse, and so riddled with patent illegality, that the Shahs are entitled to an unconditional stay. Now this positions the matter perhaps slightly differently from most. For Mr Chinoy says a refusal of stay would result in colossal injustice and inequity, especially given the facial perversity of the Award.