Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN PALLI, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
DLF Home Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
CM-180-FCARB-2024
Prayer in the instant application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record Annexures A-13 to A-16 as also to exempt filing certified/true types copies thereof.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Annexures A-13 to A-16 are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.
FAO-CARB-51-2024 (O&M)
1. The appellant (M/s DLF Home Developers Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/developer/counter claimant) assails the order dated 09.09.2024 vide which the Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram dismissed the petition filed by it under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’).
2. In nutshell, a collaboration agreement dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) (as annexed with the petition preferred under Section 9 of the 1996 Act which is on record as Annexure A-1) was executed between the appellant/developer/counter claimant and respondents No.2 to 8 (M/s Acme Build Well Pvt. Ltd. and six other companies) through respondents No.9 to 13 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘land owners’) and respondent No.1 (M/s
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 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.
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.
Compliance with Sec. 31(5) of the Act of 1996 regarding the delivery of the arbitration award to each party is crucial in commencing the period of limitation for filing objections under Sec. 34(3) of....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
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....
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
