Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Engineering Projects (India) Limited, Through Its Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
MSA Global LLC (OMAN), A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of OMAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial intervention in arbitration disputes (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of contractual agreements and arbitration (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. arbitral challenge based on claims of unfairness (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments regarding procedural impropriety (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. counterarguments against procedural claims (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. jurisdiction of civil courts over arbitration (Para 41 , 42 , 51) |
| 7. vexatiousness and appropriateness for judicial remedy (Para 56 , 58 , 60 , 62) |
| 8. condition for granting anti-arbitration injunction (Para 104 , 122) |
| 9. conclusion and procedural directions for case management (Para 126 , 127 , 128) |
JUDGMENT :
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
I.A. 9724/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT 1. Prelude 2. Brief Background of the Dispute 3. Proceedings before this Court 4. Submissions advanced by the Parties 5. Analysis 5.1. Maintainability of Civil Suit 5.2. Litmus Test to Determine Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings 5.3. Vexatiousness Discernible from the Cond |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
