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
Golden Chariot Recreations Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Panika – Respondent


Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks access to arbitration despite prior rejection. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's arguments on grounds of maintainability and limitation. (Para 3)
3. respondents' counterarguments on limitation and res judicata. (Para 4)
4. court's analysis of maintainability and limitation issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's final decision and cost imposition. (Para 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral):

ARB.P. 593/2020, I.A. 10525/2020 & I.As. 987-988/2021

1. The earlier rejection of a nearly identical petition, also filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short `the Act'), for the same relief as sought in the present petition has not dissuaded it from making another attempt. The Petitioner asserts that notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier petition, the instant petition is maintainable as a new cause of action has occurred. The Court is eager to know what this new cause of action is.

Brief Facts

2. Since the facts of the case have a long and chequered history leading to multiple litigations before this Court, it would be apposite to briefly not

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