SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
IMZ Corporate Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
MSD Telematics Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Table of Content
1. petition under section 11 for arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions regarding breach of mou. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's reasoning on jurisdiction and claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. appointment of arbitrator affirmed. (Para 16 , 19)
5. conclusion and order to allow petition. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, `the Act'], seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Vide order dated 8th February, 2021, the Respondent [hereinafter, `MSD'] was called upon to file a reply to the petition. No reply had been filed till the next date of hearing, i.e. 8th April, 2021, and further time was sought in this regard. At that stage, after hearing the counsel for the Petitioner [hereinafter, `IMZ'] as well as the learned senior counsel for MSD at considerable length on objections to the petition, the Court had proceeded to decide the case and dictated the order in open court, wherein the present petition was being disposed of.

2. However, upon a closer scrutiny of facts, the matter was directed to be listed for further argument

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top