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

2023 Supreme(All) 2152

JASPREET SINGH
Omex Autos Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hi-Tech Competent Builders Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Applicant : Divyanshu Bhatt, Shashwat Singh.
For the Opposite Party : Ashok Kumar Singh.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction is invoked under arbitration act. (Para 1)
2. existence of arbitration clause under the agreement. (Para 2 , 3)
3. petitioner claims work delays and seeks arbitration. (Para 4 , 5)
4. respondent contests jurisdiction and arbitration invocation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. dispute existence debated by parties. (Para 10 , 11)
6. petitioner asserts arbitration clause invoked. (Para 12)
7. court's discretion regarding jurisdiction is affirmed. (Para 17)
8. court finds disputes exist, overruling objections. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
9. court emphasizes failure to follow arbitration procedures. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
10. improper invocation of arbitration; petition is not maintainable. (Para 26)
11. petition deemed unmaintainable without proper arbitration invocation. (Para 27)
12. court dismisses petition but leaves arbitration door open. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

The instant petition has been preferred under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996", for short) for seeking appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes having arisen between the parties arising out of an agreement dated 0

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