Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATEEK JALAN
Anil Goel – Appellant
Versus
Satish Goel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disputes arose from the mou. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. key mou clauses referenced for resolution. (Para 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding family members' involvement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. objections related to arbitration clause validity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. different interpretations of mou obligations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court's role in arbitration process. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. legal requirements for invoking arbitration. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. court's conclusion on parties to arbitration. (Para 38) |
| 9. court's order on referral to arbitration. (Para 39) |
| 10. final directions and costs ruling. (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"] arises out of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.11.2014 [hereinafter, "MoU"]. It appears from a reading of the MoU that it was intended to settle issues between two brothers-the petitioner and the respondent No.1 herein-and members of their family with regard to division of certain businesses and properties. Regrettably, that salutary objective has not been fulfilled and par
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
