Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Sequoia Fitness and Sports Technology Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
GD Goenka Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the parties and contract. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments about service provision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. respondents' counterarguments on agreement execution. (Para 25) |
| 5. court’s analysis on arbitration agreement's validity. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. conclusion dismissing the petition. (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. At the outset, I may state, the learned counsel for the petitioner had on May 27, 2022, made a statement that he shall press this petition qua respondents 2 to 4 and not against respondent No.1. Hence, the present petition is being considered for appointment of sole Arbitrator qua respondents 2 to 4.
2. This is a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, `A&C Act, 1996') with the following prayers:
"Prayers:
Therefore, based on the facts and the circumstances of the matter, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
1.
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
