ANOOP V.MOHTA
Sahyadri Earthmovers – Appellant
Versus
L & T Finance Limited – Respondent
Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioners have invoked Section 9 read with Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), basically against the communication dated 17.08.2010, of the Arbitrator. The prayers of the Petitioners are as under :
(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.2, the learned sole Arbitrator to formulate and prescribe the appropriate legal procedure for adjudicating the arbitration proceedings and convening the arbitration meetings and more particularly to record the evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act;
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.2, the learned sole Arbitrator to give consideration for all the Acts applicable so that the proceedings cannot be in conflict with the Public Policy of India;
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the above arbitration proceedings before Respondent No.2 may please be stayed;
3 The first and foremost thing is that Section 9 or Section 19 or any other Section under the Arbitration Act, nowhere permit a party to challenge such order passed by the Arbitrator pending the arbitration pro
G. Ramchandra Reddy & Company v Union of India & anr.(2009) 6 SCC 414
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v Progressive Writers and Publishers (2009) 5 SCC 678
Ispat Engineer Foundary Works v Steel Authority of India (2001) 6 SCC 347
Sudarshan Trading v Allied Construction (2003) 7 SCC 396
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd v Daehim Industrial Co. Ltd. 2007(10) SCALE 577/(2007) 8 SCC 466
Delhi Development Authority v R.S.Sharma & Co.(2008) 13 SCC 80
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.