SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Bom) 213

R.D.DHANUKA
D. Virendra – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:H.S.S. Murthy i/by N.M. Shah, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.

Judgment :

1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30th June, 2011 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent.

2. Mr. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:

(a) No notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner before appointing the learned arbitrator.

(b) The learned arbitrator did not disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality and thus the arbitrator has acted in breach of section 12 sub section (1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

(c) Though the contract provides for payment of interest at the rate of 11% p.a., the learned arbitrator has awarded interest at the rate of 15.3% p.a.

3. As far as the first issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice to the petitioner was given before appointment of the arbitrator is concerned, clause 10.7(h) of the agreement provides that in the event of any dispute or differences arising under the agreement, including any dispute as to any amount outstanding, the real meaning or purport hereof, such d





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top