Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Aktivortho Private Limited Earlier Known As M/s International Orthopedic Rehabilitation And Prevention India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dilbagh Singh Sachdeva – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.
1. This Appeal has been filed by Aktivortho Private Limited earlier known as M/s International Orthopedic Rehabilitation and Prevention (India) Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as the “Appellant/Lessee”] under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”] impugning a judgment passed by the learned District Judge Commercial Court-03, West, Tis Hazari, Delhi dated 29.01.2024 in O.M.P. (COMM.) 19/2023 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. The Appellant is aggrieved by the Impugned Order which upheld the award dated 08.08.2022 as amended by the Arbitral Award dated 17.03.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “Arbitral Award”]. By the Arbitral Award the sole arbitrator appointed by the learned Trial Court on 20.12.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Sole Arbitrator”] adjudicated upon a landlord-tenant dispute in relation to the Upper Ground Floor, comprising of a total super area of 3400 sq. ft. of property bearing No. 63, West Avenue Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, 110026 [hereinafter referred to as “Premises”]. The Appellant/Lessee was the Petitioner before the learned Com
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, affirming that the Sole Arbitrator's findings were plausible and did not warrant judicial interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court upheld the Arbitral Award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference and confirming the validity of the Sole Arbitrator's findings regarding the Lease Deed.
The court affirmed that an arbitral award can only be set aside for patent illegality, emphasizing that lessor maintained obligations under the lease despite lessee's claims. Termination due to non-p....
The court reaffirmed that an arbitrator's award is not subject to re-evaluation for evidence sufficiency under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the limits of judicial i....
The arbitrator must address allegations of fraud and collusion affecting the enforceability of a contract; failure to do so results in an award being set aside for patent illegality.
The liability of the appellant to pay outstanding rent and maintenance charges was not restricted by a previous order, and the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199....
Oral extensions of lease agreements do not sustain arbitration clauses; such clauses require written documentation to remain valid following the lease's expiration.
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
