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

2010 Supreme(Del) 894

VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Shyam Telecom Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Icomm Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Karun Prakash, Shuchi Jain , Siddarth, Krislman Veuugopal,Sr.

(ORAL) Valmiki J. Mehta, J:-

1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner challenges the order dated 1st December, 2009 passed by the sole arbitrator. By the impugned order, the amendment application which was filed by the petitioner was dismissed. It is contended that in spite of the fact that it is only an amendment application which has been dismissed by the impugned order, this order amounts to an interim or partial Award.

2. It is trite that objections under Section 34 would be filed only if there is an Award. No doubt the Award need not be a final Award but it can also be an interim or partial Award, but, all the same it has to be an Award. An interim or partial Award, in my opinion would take colour from Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in that the said order must decide finally, on merits, a particular part of the disputes between the parties. Section 2(2) of the CPC reads as under:- “ 2. Definitions-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-- xxx xxx xxx (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusive
















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