Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
Coral Telecom Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Elcom Innovations Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
I.A. 5437/2022 (for condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.
ARB.P. 1185/2021
1. The present petition is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the following prayers:
"In light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(i) Appoint an appropriate arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties; and
(ii) Pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. An invocation notice dated October 20, 2021 was sent by the petitioner invoking Article IV (Arbitration) of the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MoU") dated July 10, 2012 read with MoU dated February 01, 2013, due to the failure to resolve issues with regard to willful non-adherence of contractual obligations and responsibilities, breach of Gross Contribution Sharing Terms and the resultant unjust enrichment of the respondent. The a
The court found that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, permitting disputes from multiple MoUs to be addressed in arbitration, emphasizing the limited judicial review role in such m....
The Court's limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act does not allow for a detailed consideration of the disputes, which is to be determined by the arbitrator.
Court has limited jurisdiction under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The issue of non-arbitrability is required to be decided at the referral stage, and the Court has the jurisdiction to review the non-arbitrability aspects at the initial stage.
A binding arbitration agreement exists despite challenges to the validity of accompanying contracts, with disputes to be resolved by an appointed arbitrator.
The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.
An enforceable arbitration agreement requires mutual consent evidenced by signed documents; mere communications cannot establish such consent.
A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement cannot invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement to which it is not a party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of privity of contract, emphasizing that a third party cannot enforce the terms of a contract to which it is not a party.
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
