Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU
Shailendra Paul – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Aggarwal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petition under arbitration and conciliation act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of collaboration agreement and payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. disputes leading to arbitration arising from incomplete construction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. actions and directions of the court preceding arbitration. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments against the arbitral tribunal's conclusions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. clarification on limitation period and objections. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. court's analysis of claims and arguments. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. court's stance on findings regarding the ats. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 9. evaluation of possession issues. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 10. contrast of parties' claims for possession. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 11. final findings on claims and rationale for rulings. (Para 67 , 68) |
| 12. conclusion and outcome of the petition. (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 31.12.2019 (hereinaf
A party's claim to receive contractual consideration remains valid despite non-execution of a sale deed; limitation periods should not bar claims that arise from the contract unless unambiguously est....
The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in its finding that the version of the ATS (Agreement to Sell dated 14.11.2011) as relied upon by the petitioner was fabricated, and also erred in its ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The Court emphasized the restrictive scope of jurisdiction at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the need to weed out manifestly non-ex....
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
Parties to a collaboration agreement are accountable for adherence to agreed terms; unauthorized deviations may invoke liability for damages arising from resultant legal complications and emotional d....
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
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
