Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V.KAMESWAR RAO
DLF Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
IL&FS Engineering and Construction Company – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background related to project delays and disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details on disputes and legal notices related to claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding arbitration and claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. discussion on legal implications of claims before and post moratorium. (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. court's refusal to dismiss case and maintained order regarding claims. (Para 54 , 55 , 64) |
| 6. final ruling on the petition dismissal. (Para 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act of 1996", hereinafter) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for the resolution of disputes between the parties under a Contract dated June 21, 2012.
2. At the outset, I may briefly narrate the facts which have lead to the filing of the present petition. The petitioner entered into a cost sharing agreement with Haryana Urban Development Authority ("HUDA", hereinafter), for external development works for improvement of certain road networks in Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondent presented itself as a prominent infrastructure development compan
The initiation of arbitration is impermissible due to an existing moratorium that restrains all legal proceedings, including arbitration, until the related insolvency matters are resolved.
The Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable.
Point of law: The Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable.
Disputes concerning alleged payments are referable to arbitration despite claims of prior resolution efforts, where the existence of disputes was upheld.
The mere filing of the proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC did not preclude the Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the aCa, as the proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC we....
IBC is a time bound process – Plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.
Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished, and the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on such claims.
Judicial immunity under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is upheld, but the court emphasizes the need for accountability and the exhaustion of alternative remedies before seeking writ relief.
The court held that the validity of claims and the arbitrability of related disputes must be referred to arbitration, rejecting the respondent's claims of non-compliance with contractual protocols li....
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
