SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Narender Singh – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appeal's basis and background. (Para 1 , 3)
2. compliance with notice provisions. (Para 2 , 5 , 10)
3. rationale for setting aside the award. (Para 4 , 18)
4. mandatory disclosures for impartial arbitrator. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT

[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.

FAO (COMM) 179/2021 & CM APPL. 39706/2021 [Application for Condonation of Delay]

1. The present Appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act") read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 against the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 17.12.2020 (hereinafter "the Impugned Judgment"). By the Impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge has allowed the Petition under Section 34 of the Act and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.07.2019 on the following two grounds:

(i) There is non-compliance of Section 21 of the Act;

(ii) The Arbitrator did not make the requisite disclosure as is required under Section 12 of the Act.

1.1. At the outset, it is noticed that the Appeal is

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