Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Splendor Buildwell Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Parminder Jit Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the judgement dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Arb. A (COMM) No.06/2022 titled “M/s Splendor Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v/s Mrs. Parminder Jit Kaur” and batch matters filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 assailing the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Arbitrator under section 17 (1)(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Arbitrator.
2. FACTS IN BRIEF :
2.1 A Space Buyer Agreement dated 28.07.2017 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.07.2017 came to be entered into between the parties whereby space no. 404 in Tower D, Spectrum I, Sector 58, Village Behrampur, District Sohna, Gurugram (Haryana) was allotted to the respondent having super area of 765 sq. Feet, at a consideration amount of Rs.22,95,000/- with GST of Rs.2,75,400/. The respondent thus paid a total amount of Rs.25,70,400/- to appellant for purchase of the aforesaid office space. In the MoU dated 28.07.2017, the appellant assured the respondent to
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order passed by the Arbitrator under section 17(1)(ii)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a proper exercise of jurisdict....
Section 17 relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires proof of both a prima facie case and potential asset dissipation, which was not adequately demonstrated.
The arbitral tribunal has broad powers to issue interim measures under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring protection of claims during ongoing proceedings.
The court established that while Section 9 allows for court intervention in arbitration matters, it can only do so if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be ineffective, particularly when third p....
An arbitral tribunal, while adjudicating an application for interim protection under Section 17, does not determine the lis between the parties.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious, particularly regarding third parties not party....
The absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties precludes arbitration proceedings, and the moratorium under the IBC can bar such proceedings if jurisdiction is lacking.
The court upheld the specific performance of the Joint Venture Agreement and granted interim measures under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to prevent the appellant from disrupting....
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with....
The court ruled that interim relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act cannot effectively adjudicate final rights or impose substantial financial burdens without trial, emphasizing the importanc....
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
