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
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Esha Kedia – Appellant
Versus
Milan R. Parekh – Respondent


Table of Content
1. factual disclosure of arbitration dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments against validity of mous and arbitration (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 35)
3. court's appointment of arbitrator (Para 22 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
4. group of companies doctrine's application (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. conclusion and order of petition dismissal (Para 43)

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `A&C Act, 1996') seeking appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator for adjudication of disputes having arisen between the parties.

2. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers and are in the business of share broking for the last 35 years. The respondent No. 3-M/s Action Financial Services India Limited is a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 31, Rajgir Chambers, 4th Floor, 12/14, ShahidBhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai and is listed with Bombay Stock Exchange through respo

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