B.P.COLABAWALLA
YUSUFKHAN @ DILIP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
PRAJITA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. – Respondent
B. P. Colabawalla, J.
Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the Arbitration Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. This Arbitration Petition has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") challenging the order dated 31st May, 2018 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (for short the "impugned order") under Section 17 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will not alienate or encumber or part with possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the arbitration to the extent of Rs.25 crores till the arbitration proceedings are concluded. It was further clarified that this undertaking shall be in respect of a specific property i.e. certain specific portion of the developed property that falls to the share of the petitioner or any other unencumbered personal property of the petitioner.
3. At the outset, when I went through the impugned order, I found that there are several inconsistencies therein. I was therefore inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand it back to the Arbitral Tribunal for a
Nimbus Communications Limited Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India and Anr
National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v Sentrans Industries Ltd.
Baker Hughes Singapore Pte v. Shiv-Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd
Arvind Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. Kalinga Mining Corpn.
Adhunik Steels Limited v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd.
National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v. Sentrans Industries Limited
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.