Tricolor Hotels Limited vs Dinesh Jain

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
MINI PUSHKARNA
Tricolor Hotels Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Jain – Respondent

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks appointment of a new arbitrator due to previous arbitrator's recusal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. respondents argue inordinate delay in filing petition with no acceptable justification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. petitioners hold that limitation starts after 30 days post-recusal according to article 137. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
4. court examines accrual of right to apply for arbitrator substitution and outlines the limitation period. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. key legal observations made regarding the procedures of appointing a substitute arbitrator. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court clarifies that limitation period for filing is governed by article 137 irrespective of knowledge. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. petition is dismissed with no sufficient cause shown for condoning delay. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), petitioner is seeking appointment of a substitute arbitrator as the earlier arbitrator recused himself from adjudicati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTMINI PUSHKARNATricolor Hotels Limited – AppellantVersusDinesh Jain – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
MINI PUSHKARNA
Tricolor Hotels Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Jain – Respondent