Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Ram Nanda and Co. – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Saigal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the arbitral award under section 34. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. history of disputes leading to arbitration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appointment process of the arbitrator. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. service of notices and its repercussions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. arguments on due notice and service. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. court's finding on service issues. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. procedures and requirements for proper notice. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. final order to set aside award and directions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
[Hearing held through video conferencing]
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act'), impugning an arbitral award dated 29.06.2019 (the impugned award) passed by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioners contend that the impugned award is liable to be set aside in terms of Section 34 (2)(a)(iii) in as much as the petitioners were not given any notice for appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings. The petitioners also claims that they were unable to present their case and contest the said
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
