Back
G. S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Lekh Buildtech P. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.
The present appeal under Section 13 of COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, (for short the "Act of 2015") read with Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the "Act of 1996") has been filed assailing the order dated 21.09.2023, passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Judge, Exclusive Commercial Courts at Gurugram, (for short "Commercial Court") whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, was dismissed.
2. It is contended by the appellant that on 12.03.2022, the respondent had issued an advertisement for auction of 3.54 acre of commercial land in Sector 43, Urban Estate, Gurgaon-II by way of publication in newspaper. On 30.03.2022, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,19,41,600/- towards 5% earnest money and on 31.03.2022, he was declared as a highest bidder for Rs. 495,11,61,200/- in the e-auction. Thereafter, on 04.04.2022, he further deposited a sum of Rs. 29,31,76,520/- to make a total deposit of Rs. 49,51,16,120/- to make the good 10% of the bid amount. On 19.05.2022, the Letter of Intent dated 19.05.2022 (Annexure P-6) (for short "the LOI") was issued in favour of t
The Letter of Intent issued in an auction is not binding until all payment conditions are satisfied, and a petitioner cannot invoke arbitration provisions prior to issuing a letter of allotment.
The court emphasized the need to balance equities between the parties and highlighted the importance of following contractual provisions for submission of the final bill and processing thereof.
Interim injunction – Jurisdiction under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not an adjudicatory substitute for final determination of rights, but a supportive mechanism to facilit....
The scope of judicial intervention in arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is limited to assessing procedural validity, not merits of the case.
The court reaffirmed that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, focusing on procedural compliance and th....
The absence of a concluded contract precludes the invocation of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, affirming the need for absolute acceptance in contract formation.
The court held that unilateral enforcement of an arbitral award violated legal norms, reinforcing the principle that parties must adhere to statutory requirements before enforcing an award.
The relief sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act must be in the nature of interim measures to protect the subject matter of the arbitration and cannot extend to permanent injunctions.
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
