Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J
Luxury Lifeline, through its Proprietor Mr. Rahul S/o. Damodar Sarda – Appellant
Versus
Sun Petpack Jabalpur Pvt.Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in arbitration proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claim of intervention in arbitration process. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. district court dismissal of petitioner's intervention. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments for the petitioner's standing. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. analysis of petitioner's rights and claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal principles from cited cases. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. concluding remarks on petitioner's lack of locus. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. final decision on the writ petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
J U D G M E N T
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally, as respondent No.2 though served with notice of final disposal, remained absent.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 18/12/2017 passed by the Court of Principal District Judge, Nagpur, whereby an application for intervention filed by the petitioner in an application filed by respondent No.2 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1996”), has been rejected.
4. Respondent No.1 had initiated an arbitration proceeding against respondent No.2 under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Ent
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
