Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Biba Apparels Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Shabnam Enterprises – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim and agreement background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contractual obligations regarding materials. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. issue of non-completion of work orders. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. respondent's defense against claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. petition details and respondent's objections. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. jurisdiction and authority for interim orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. conclusion on petition merits and dismissal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act, 1996') read with Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Ordinance, 2015, praying for the following reliefs:
"a) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent thereby directing that the Respondent should not create any third party rights or sell or transfer the copyrighted raw material of the Petitioner to any third party; or
b) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order in favor of the Petitioner, directing th
A party seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act must demonstrate a manifest intention to invoke arbitration proceedings, which was not established by the petition....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 9(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court should intervene only in exceptional circumstances when the Arbitr....
The arbitration proceedings can only be challenged on jurisdictional grounds established under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and timeliness in raising such challenges is critical.
The main legal point established is that the filing of a petition under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act is not subject to a period of limitation and is covered by the residual provision Article 137 of ....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
Section 9 of the 1996 Act cannot be used as a tool to compel the opposite party to pay money to the claimant.
The dismissal of a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was justified due to the petitioner's failure to meet limitation requirements, as procedural defects impeded timely filing.
A court cannot grant permanent relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as its provisions are limited to interim measures to support arbitration, not for final outcomes.
The relief sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act is interim in nature and cannot be a permanent measure.
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
