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

DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Oyo Workspaces India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nagabhushan C.R. – Respondent


ORDER (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

1. Notice on this petition was issued on 8th April, 2021. Service thereon has been effected on the respondent.

2. The Registry was directed to contact the respondent telephonically as well as by WhatsApp and intimate the respondent of today's hearing.

3. The office noting by the Registry indicates that it has been done. There is, however, no appearance on behalf of the respondent either at first call or on second call.

4. It appears that the respondent is not interested in opposing the petition.

5. I have, accordingly, heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and proceed to dispose of the matter.

6. The petition, filed under Section 11 (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks appointment of an arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute between the parties.

7. The substratum of the disputes stands set out in paras 5 to 14 of the petition.

8. The arbitration clause, in the agreement between the parties, reads thus:

    "Governing Law and Dispute Resolution

    Governed by Indian law. Disputes shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 at New Delhi only."

9. Notice, invok

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