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

1999 Supreme(MP) 277

S.C.PANDEY
MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL – Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Abhay Gohil, ABHAY SAPRE

S. C. PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) HONOURABLE the Chief Justice of Madhya pradesh High Court had made a scheme for appointment of arbitrators, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-sec. (10) of Sec. 11 of the Act. By virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid scheme, the request under sub-sec. (4) or sub-sec. (5) or sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 11 of the Act can be heard by the Chief Justice himself or a Judge designated by him by a general or special order. In view of a general order passed by Honourable the Chief Justice designating me for the purpose in this case, this request can be heard by me.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non-applicants regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or his designate to hear the application under Sec. 11 of the Act. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that this request under Sec. 11 of the Act cannot be heard as a dispute between the partners relates to a matter which is with regard to less than Rs. 25 Lacs. The argument of the learned counsel for the non-app













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