Back
ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Parsvnath Developers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Devendra Singh Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Aggarwal, J.
The appellant (M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited) assails the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Court of learned District Judge Rewari, vide which the application preferred by the respondents under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the “CPC”) read with Section 2 (1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “1996 Act”) seeking return of the objection petition preferred by the present appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was allowed and the petition preferred under Section 34 was ordered to be returned for being presented in the competent Court.
2. The appeal raises an interesting, often debated but short question, for which extremely lengthy arguments were addressed by both sides. The question to be decided is as to whether the petition preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act challenging the Award dated 21.09.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal would be maintainable at Rewari or the same would have to be filed at Delhi, where the arbitration proceedings were conducted. The issue of “venue” and “seat” has once again been raised by the parties whi
Venue of arbitration does not equate to its jurisdictional seat; petitions under the Arbitration Act must be filed where arbitration took place, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement - Application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pend....
The jurisdiction for appeals regarding arbitration awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lies with the Commercial Appellate Court as prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, superse....
The designated seat of arbitration establishes exclusive jurisdiction for related applications, affirming that the Commercial Court in Ranchi has jurisdiction over Section 34 applications.
The court established that challenges to an arbitrator's jurisdiction under Section 16 can only be raised after a final award, not as an interim appeal.
Granting or refusing to grant any measure and set aside an arbitral award - No final adjudication of Section 9 application nor does impugned order finally decide same - Decision in application under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appealability of orders pertaining to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be determined as per the drill under Section 50 alone, and....
A memorandum of settlement does not attain finality and is not executable as an award under the Arbitration Act; therefore, an appeal against a refusal to execute such an award is not maintainable un....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appeals would only lie from the orders mentioned in Section 37 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, and from no others. Additionally....
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
