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
Universal Design Build – Appellant
Versus
Dealskart Online Services Private Limited – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appointment of sole arbitrator under act (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention on existence of arbitration agreement (Para 3 , 4)
3. analysis of clause 19's arbitration intent (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. criteria for valid arbitration agreements (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. dismissal of petition due to no valid arbitration (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] seeks appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes arising from a Service Agreement dated 26th February, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as `the Agreement'].

2. The arbitration clause thereunder reads as follows:

    "19. Venue: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law

    This Agreement and all rights, duties and obligations arising hereunder shall be governed in accordance with the laws of India. Subject to Section 20 sub-section (b) (Arbitration), any dispute, disagreement or proceeding arising under or related to this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at New Delhi, India. "

3. The existence of the Agreement is not in dispute. However, the primary, and in

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