Prime Interglobe Private Limited vs Super Milk Products Private Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Prime Interglobe Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Super Milk Products Private Limited – Respondent

Table of Content
1. interpretation of sections 25(a) and 32 of the arbitration act. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16)
2. appointment of a substitute arbitrator to resolve disputes. (Para 21 , 22 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. No. 3810/2021 (seeking condonation of delay of 564 days in filing the present accompanying petition)

1. In light of the relaxation of limitation granted through several orders of the Supreme Court vide Suo Moto W.P. (C) 3/2020, Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, and also for the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the delay of 564 days in filing the present petition, is condoned and the application is allowed.

2. The application stands disposed of.

O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 31/2021

3. The Petitioner/counter-claimant could not file its counter-claims within the prescribed time during the course of the arbitral proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator - Hon'ble Ms. Justice Pratibha Rani (Retd.), former Judge of this Court, who was unilaterally appointed by the Respondent. With the Respondent deciding not to pursue its claims and inability of Petitioner to raise any counter-claim(s), the Arbitrator terminated the proceedings. In this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTSANJEEV NARULAPrime Interglobe Private Limited – AppellantVersusSuper Milk Products Private Limited – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Prime Interglobe Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Super Milk Products Private Limited – Respondent