Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh – Appellant
Versus
Asap Fluids Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the captioned petitions raise analogous issues between the same parties, those were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The petitioner has filed the present two petitions in terms of Section 11(6) read with Section 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act, 1996”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims in terms of Clause 13.10 of the Shareholders Agreement dated 25.07.2011 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Aslam Ismail Khan Deshmukh (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”) is a Non-Resident Indian, who is currently residing and working in Dubai, UAE, having experience and expertise in the drilling fluid industry.
4. ASAP Fluids Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no.1”) is an Indian private limited company engaged in providing drilling fluids services to the oil and gas industry, whereas Gumpro Drilling Fluids Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no. 2”) is a private limited company that specializes in oil field services and offers mud services.
5.
The court confirmed that the existence of an arbitration agreement is undisputed, and any claims regarding time-bar should be determined by the arbitral tribunal.
(1) Period of limitation to file application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is 3 years’ from date of refusal to appoint Arbitrator, or on expiry of 30 days’, whichever is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act arises upon the failure to make the appointment of the arbitr....
The court confirmed that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, limiting judicial scrutiny to the agreement's existence, deferring sub....
The court held that its review under Section 11(6) is limited to confirming the existence of an arbitration agreement, without delving into substantive disputes, which is for the Arbitrator to decide....
Judicial scrutiny under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, with substantive issues reserved for the arbitral tribunal.
The court clarified that post-2015 amendments, its role under Section 11 is limited to verifying the existence of an arbitration agreement, with other issues, including limitation, to be resolved by ....
The referral court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must determine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator if satisfied.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
