SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 1628

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI
Ramesh Patodia – Appellant
Versus
Vir Studdio Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Aditya J. Pandya
For the Respondents: Anuj H. Dave

JUDGMENT :

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents herein.

2. Brief facts are as under. The petitioner is a sole proprietory concern. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to invest in the business of plywood and other raw materials used for furniture. Respondent No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of engaging in such business, the petitioner had negotiated with respondent No. 2 company. It was only on account of reputation of respondent No. 2 company that the petitioner was persuaded to engage in such business. The petitioner also incurred initial expenditure for setting up of a show-room. However, respondent No. 2 conveyed to the petitioner that actual agreement will take place only with respondent No. 1 company which is a group company of respondent No. 2 company. The petitioner therefore, under compulsion executed the agreement with respondent No. 1 and under such agreement dated 9.10.2013, petitioner started franchise store. According to the petitioner, the entire business was operated under ins























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top