KUMAR MANGAT PATHAK, SOLE PROPRIETOR OF BIG SCREEN ENTERTAINER Vs. CINEMA CAPITAL VENTURE FUND, THROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition is placed before me since AK Menon J, to whose bench these matters are ordinarily assigned, is unable to take it. There is on board a Commercial Execution Application No. 827 of 2018, a Chamber Summons by the Respondent to the Arbitration (the Award Debtor; "Pathak"), his Chamber Summons No. 497 of 2018 to raise an attachment, and his Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended ("the Arbitration Act"). There is also the Pathak's Notice of Motion No. 812 of 2018 for stay of execution of the Award. Since I am hearing the Petition under Section 34, this order will dispose of the Motion for stay and the Chamber Summons for raising attachment as well.

(2.) The challenge is to an Award dated 15th June 2017.

(3.) It is clear from the Petition that no part of the challenge falls under Section 34(2)(a) or Section 34(2)(b)(i) of the Arbitration Act. The challenge is mounted under Section 24(2)(b)(ii), ostensibly on the ground that the Award is in conflict with the public policy of India.