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

2005 Supreme(Del) 92

MUKUL MUDGAL
J. B. DADACHANJI – Appellant
Versus
RAVINDER NARAIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
L.R.GUPTA, MANISH VASHISHT, PALLAV SHISHODIA, PRAVIN BAHADUR, R.S.Mathur

Mukul Mudgal, J.

( 1 ) THE first application, IA 9696/03 is filed by Shri O. C. Mathur, respondent No. 2 under Section 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) for appointment of substitute arbitrator in place of Dr. Justice A. S. Anand on the ground that pending arbitration proceedings do not stand terminated under Section 32 of the Act. The second and third applications, las 11496 and 11599 of 2003 have been filed in A. A. No. 122 of 2000 and CS (OS) No. 1084-A of 2000 by the petitioner and respondent No. 1/petitioner respectively in the said suit for withdrawal of their arbitration petition and the suit.

( 2 ) THE arbitration petition, Arb. P. No. 122 of 2000 was filed by M/s. J. B. Dadachanji (in short the jbd ) under Section 11 of the Act for appointment an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes regarding validity of modification deed dated 1st January, 1997, dissolution of firms and rendition of accounts. The respondent No. 1 in this petition is Shri Ravinder Narain (in short rn ), who is the partner of JBD Company and respondent No. 2, Shri O. C. Mathur, who is another partner of JBD company (in short OCM ).

( 3 ) SINCE J









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