Back
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, SANJEEV NARULA
Rajiv K Luthra – Appellant
Versus
Mohit Saraf – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 18th January, 2021 of the Single Judge, allowing OMP (I) (COMM) No.339/2020, under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the respondent.
2. The appeal was filed and on urgent mentioning got listed yesterday and was received by us, post court commencement hours and was taken up for hearing at about 1600 hours. The senior counsels for the appellant sought stay of the operation of the impugned judgment dated 18th January, 2021. The senior counsels for the respondents appearing on advance notice opposed the grant of stay.
3. Considering that the disputes are amongst advocates of this Court, we started hearing of the appeal yesterday itself by limiting the time of arguments on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent to two hours each. The senior counsels for the appellant were heard for about fifteen minutes yesterday and the further hearing adjourned to 29th January, 2021. The Single Judge, while allowing the Section 9 petition filed by the respondent, on request of the counsels for the appellant, had directed his judgment to remain in abeyance till today. We thus posted the hearing qua arrangement if an
The main legal point established is that the interim arrangement devised by the Single Judge should continue during the appeal, with the possibility of the appellate court passing appropriate orders ....
The court emphasized the importance of timely action in arbitration proceedings and deemed the appellant's conduct objectionable, leading to dismissal of the appeal and enhancement of costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of an appeal under section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, and the need for clear authority of law for th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of manifest intention to arbitrate under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, and the legal effectiveness of an interim order under Se....
Once an Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, Section 9 of the Arbitration Act prohibits further applications for interim relief unless the party shows that the remedy under Section 17 is ineffective.
The main legal point established is that Section 9 proceedings are for grant/non-grant of interim measures, not for adjudicating disputed facts, and the principles of granting interim measures should....
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
