Back
VIBHU BAKHRU
Shailendra Paul – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Aggarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 31.12.2019 (hereinafter 'the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal').
2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation with the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.10.2010 (hereinafter 'the Collaboration Agreement').
Factual Context
On 13.01.2006, the petitioner purchased the property bearing number F-20, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi - 110017. Thereafter, on 24.10.2010, the petitioner and the respondent entered into the Collaboration Agreement, wherein the parties had agreed to demolish the existing structure and reconstruct the building with a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace (hereafter 'the Entire Property') in terms of the quality standards as detailed out in Annexure A of the Collaboration Agreement. Further, the respondent agreed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000 against the rights of the seco
The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in its finding that the version of the ATS (Agreement to Sell dated 14.11.2011) as relied upon by the petitioner was fabricated, and also erred in its ....
A party's claim to receive contractual consideration remains valid despite non-execution of a sale deed; limitation periods should not bar claims that arise from the contract unless unambiguously est....
The Court emphasized the restrictive scope of jurisdiction at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the need to weed out manifestly non-ex....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
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
