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
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TARA VITASTA GANJU
Helm Dungemittel GMBH – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appellant's grievance against order on bank guarantee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. background on prior proceedings and appeals. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
3. court's analysis of arbitral award matters. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. discussion on section 11 petition proceedings. (Para 14 , 15)
5. directions regarding bank guarantee and compliance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. entitlement to raise counterclaims. (Para 26 , 27)
7. conclusion and order on appeal. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

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

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/18.04.2022.

2. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the direction contained in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. The said paragraph reads as follows:

    "11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with the direction that the bank guarantee for Rs. 15 crores which has been furnished before Court in O.M.P.(I.)(COMM.) 318/2018 shall be kept alive for a period of eight weeks from today."

3. This order was passed, based on a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short "1996 Act"] by Canara Bank i.e








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