Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Jitender Pal Singh (HUF) – Appellant
Versus
Oyo Apartments Investments (LLP) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.
1. These appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1A&C Act], have been filed against separate orders, all dated 07.06.2024, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-10), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [District Court], in petitions filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the A&C Act, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the said petitions and consequently upheld the separate arbitral awards, all dated 25.01.2023, passed by the learned Arbitrator.
2. Before delving into the legal submissions, it is important to note certain excerpts from the Arbitral Award dated 25.01.2023, which set out the relevant and analogous background to the present appeals. The following paragraphs from the Arbitral Award, rendered in one of the connected matters [FAO (COMM) 175/2024], are particularly illustrative:-
“2. The Claimant entered into a Management Services Agreement dated 22.7.2019 with the Respondent, in respect of a property owned by the Respondent in Malka Ganj, Delhi, whereunder the Claimant was to pay 70% of the revenue share to the Respondent for the first three months, followed by the same share of t
The scope of judicial review in arbitration awards is strictly confined to the grounds available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing the non-interference standard unless the award....
The court's jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties are unable to agree on the arbitrator.
The court has the authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when parties cannot agree on one, promoting efficient dispute resolution.
Acceptance of delayed performance without complaint waives claims for breach; contemporaneous allegations are required to support contract termination.
The arbitrator must address allegations of fraud and collusion affecting the enforceability of a contract; failure to do so results in an award being set aside for patent illegality.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the court under Section 34 of the Act, emphasizing that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess fa....
Limited interference with arbitral awards under S.34/37 of A&C Act; partial set-aside for patent illegality in severable claims.
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
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
