Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
NJ Bikes India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Suzuki Motorycycle India Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against previous court order (Para 2) |
| 2. counsels' presentation of case (Para 3) |
| 3. court's directions for arbitration (Para 4) |
| 4. closure of pending application (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 3003/2022
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 8/2022 and CM APPL. 3002/2022 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant for interim relief]
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2022, passed by the learned District judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The impugned order dated 06.01.2022 has been passed in an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short "the 1996 Act"].
3. We have heard Ms Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant, as also Mr Anshul Sehgal, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. After some arguments, counsel for the parties i.e., Ms Suri and Mr Sehgal agreed that the appeal could be disposed of based on the following directions. We may add that, both the counsels have taken instru
The court appointed a retired judge as a sole arbitrator for disputes under the Arbitration Act, allowing the appellant to pursue interlocutory applications while emphasizing that the merits of the c....
The court clarified that the residuary clause in Section 9(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not permit intervention for issues pertaining to fee calculation by the Tribunal.
The residuary clause of Section 9(1)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not cover orders passed by the Tribunal concerning the calculation of fee based on the interpretation of th....
The court affirmed that parties can mutually consent to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, with obligations on the arbitrator to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes.
Parties may appoint an arbitrator by mutual agreement, leading to dispute resolution under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process.
The arbitration process is governed by mutual consent, allowing parties to appoint an arbitrator and seek interim relief under Sections 12(2) and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the appointment of the arbitrator was in accordance with the legal framework provided by the Act.
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes as per the arbitration clause in the agreement, emphasizing that the parties are bound to arbitrate their disagreements.
Appointment of an arbitrator in instances where the respondent does not object to arbitration is valid under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the importance of efficient dispute reso....
The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve disputes between parties, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act procedures.
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
