Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Shamshul Ishrar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Alka Chandewar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partnership evolution and 80% share till 1997. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arbitration claims of forged deeds. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. section 34 petition hearing procedure. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. challenge to award quantum as perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. claims barred by three-year limitation. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. continued partnership despite alleged forgery. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. no limitation for dissolution accounts. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. best judgment profits from sales deeds. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. forged deeds invalidated; partnership upheld. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. sales turnover trumps tax returns. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. dissolution entitlements at termination date. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. full accounts on dissolution, no prior limit. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 13. alka's 80% share entitlement confirmed. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 14. section 34 petition dismissed. (Para 65 , 66) |
| 15. wilful disobedience of section 17 orders. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 16. contempt submissions and apology. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 17. purge conte |
Arbitral awards immune from Section 34 interference absent patent illegality or perversity; non-cooperative party's withholding of accounts permits tribunal's reasonable best judgment via sales turno....
Point of law: Arbitration - Arbitral Award - Interference by Court - Scope of powers of Appellate Court under Section 37 of Arbitration Act are more limited than limited powers of the Court hearing t....
Scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who entered into it and those claiming under or through them, Courts under English Law have, in certain cases, also applied the 'Group of C....
The court's limited scope of interference in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.
The court affirmed that limitations on partnership claims do not preclude arbitration despite non-registration, and arbitrators have broad discretion to assess claims based on evidence presented.
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
Arbitrator's award regarding goodwill valuation upheld, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The dissolution of a partnership firm necessitates balancing the interests of involved parties, ensuring fair access to firm assets and proper accounting of liabilities under the Indian Partnership A....
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
