Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, PRANAV TRIVEDI
Shailesh Anilkumar Amin – Appellant
Versus
Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.)
(1) The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’ 1996 (for short, “the Act’ 1996”) is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Commercial Court and the 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in Commercial Civil Application No.07 of 2022 under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 as also the arbitral award dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator, adjudicating the dispute between the parties arising out of the alleged lease agreement dated 14.09.2012, entered into between the parties.
(2) The appellants herein namely the original claimants would contend that the subject property namely eight shops / showrooms, viz. Unit Nos. 201 to 208 (admeasuring 11,941 sq.ft., super built-up area) situated at the Second Floor of building known as Shri Rang Heights and Arcade, New PDPU Crossroads, Gandhinagar Airport Highway, Gandhinagar, Gujarat constructed upon Final Plot No.5, Sub-plot 3 of Moje Kudasan, Ta.Gandhinagar, Dist.Gandhinagar was given on lease to the respondent company namely Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) formally known as Metro Link Express
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 absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties precludes arbitration proceedings, and the moratorium under the IBC can bar such proceedings if jurisdiction is lacking.
The court reaffirmed the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that courts cannot reappraise evidence or in....
The main legal point established is that the Court does not act as a Court of appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and should not interfere with the arbitrator's fin....
Point of law : Merely because under Clause 10.3 of the agreement the allottee is entitled to issue notice and following the procedure thereunder to terminate the agreement the appellant cannot conten....
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
