Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Hindustan Cleanenergy Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maif Investments India 2 Pte Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of parties and agreements in dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 19) |
| 2. jurisdiction and limitations of section 9 (Para 5 , 7 , 28) |
| 3. arguments regarding compliance and contractual obligations (Para 6 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court observations on the status of compliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final orders and conclusions (Para 68 , 83 , 84) |
JUDGMENT
1. These petitions, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) arise out of the same set of agreements. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgement though, as the disputes in the petitions are distinct, they would be dealt with separately.
OMP (I) (COMM) 308/2020
2. Given the nature of the dispute in this petition, it would be appropriate, at the outset, to introduce the dramatis personae.
3. The petitioner provides clean energy solutions and, inter alia, sets up and implements Solar Power Projects. Kindle Engineering and Construction Pvt Ltd, Responsive SUTIP Ltd and Ujjawala Power Pvt Ltd, Respondents 3, 4 and 5, are three of 18 Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), set up by the petitioner for executing 18 Solar Power Projects. Respondents 1 and 2, by agreement w
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
