Uv Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited
AI Summary
The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a Special Leave Petition filed by UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited against Axis Bank, involving an arbitration matter. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court notably directed the Delhi High Court to expedite the disposal of a Section 37 application, clarifying that previous High Court observations on merits would not prejudice the arbitration jurisdiction.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging a final judgment and order dated March 27, 2024, passed by the High Court of Delhi in CMAPPL No. 18584/2024. The underlying dispute appears to be an arbitration matter where a Section 37 application is pending before the High Court.
Timeline of Events
High Court of Delhi passed judgment/order in CMAPPL No. 18584/2024 (impugned order).
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10390/2024 filed in Supreme Court.
Supreme Court heard and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Key Factual Findings
The Supreme Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
Source: Current Court Finding
An application under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is pending before the High Court.
Source: Current Court Finding
Any observation made by the High Court on the merits of the matter will not affect the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner (UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited) argued for interference with the High Court's judgment, presumably on grounds related to the merits or procedure of the underlying arbitration matter, which was subject of a Section 37 application before the High Court.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent (Axis Bank Limited) likely opposed the Special Leave Petition, seeking to uphold the High Court's order and prevent Supreme Court intervention, as the SLP was dismissed.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court was "not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court," implying that it found no compelling reason or legal error warranting intervention in the High Court's decision. The Court's decision to clarify the scope of Section 37 jurisdiction and direct expeditious disposal suggests that the core issue was related to ensuring the proper and timely handling of the arbitration appeal at the High Court level, rather than re-examining the merits of the High Court's earlier order.
- Emphasis on Expeditious Justice
- Respect for Lower Court Jurisdiction (with guidance)
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.The High Court is requested to dispose of the Section 37 application as expeditiously as possible.
- 2.Any observation made by the High Court on the merits of the matter will certainly not come in the way of jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a dismissal of an SLP, typically an order of non-interference. While it clarifies a point regarding Section 37 jurisdiction, it doesn't lay down a new substantive legal principle that is binding as a precedent for all courts. It's more of a guidance/direction specific to the ongoing proceedings.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
COURT NO.15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10390/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-03-2024 in CMAPPL No. 18584/2024 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
VERSUS
AXIS BANK LIMITED
Respondent $(s)$
Petitioner(s)
( IA No.107598/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
Date: 10-05-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Adv. Mr. Yajur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rohan Batra, AOR Mr. Dhruv Sethi, Adv. Ms. Sanjukta Roy, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER
While we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment 1. of the High Court, we request the High Court to dispose of the Section 37 application as expeditiously as possible. We also make it clear that any observation made by the High Court on the merits of the matter will certainly not come in the way of under Section 37 of the Arbitration and iurisdiction Conciliation Act, 1996.
- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) AR-CUM-PS
(NIDHI WASON) COURT MASTER (NSH)