Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Hari Om Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Sauman Kumar Chatterjee – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing under section 34 for challenging arbitration award (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims made in regards to partnership assets (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. decision on claims awarded in arbitration (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. misconduct allegations and jurisdiction of arbitrator (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. limitation concerning claims raised (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. determination of goodwill claims (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. respondents' defenses based on partnership act (Para 36 , 38) |
| 8. the ruling on the merits of the claims (Para 72 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The Petition bearing O.M.P. (COMM) 381/2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the Claimant, Hari Om Sharma, partner seeking to challenge the Award dated 28.04.2017 and the corrected Award dated 01.07.2017 vide which the learned Arbitrator has decided the claims of the Claimant in Arbitration proceedings pertaining to their partnership Firms M/s Ashika Textiles and Classic Processors.
2. The facts in brief are that the Claimant/petitioner, Mr. Hari Om Sharma and Mr. Sauman Kumar Chatterjee, and Mr. S.K. Malhotra, the respondent No.1& 2 respectively, const
The court affirmed that limitations on partnership claims do not preclude arbitration despite non-registration, and arbitrators have broad discretion to assess claims based on evidence presented.
Point of law: Arbitration - Arbitral Award - Interference by Court - Scope of powers of Appellate Court under Section 37 of Arbitration Act are more limited than limited powers of the Court hearing t....
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
Arbitrator's award regarding goodwill valuation upheld, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial intervention under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who entered into it and those claiming under or through them, Courts under English Law have, in certain cases, also applied the 'Group of C....
The court's limited scope of interference in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the principles of natural justice were upheld.
The court upheld the arbitral award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 34, and affirmed the validity of the Arbitrator's appointment despite the appellant's claims of jurisdi....
The court ruled that partnerships cannot be dissolved without proper evidence and consent, emphasizing the need for independent arbitration for distinct entities.
Unregistered partnership firms can enforce rights for accounts and dissolution via arbitration, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, Section 69.
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
