Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
GAURANG KANTH
Rakesh Kumar Jindal – Appellant
Versus
Anoop Kumar Jindal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. explanation of partnership and kmc tax liability. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 2. arguments for reimbursement based on tax payments made. (Para 17 , 21) |
| 3. challenges to the maintainability of post-award claims. (Para 22 , 23 , 30) |
| 4. court's reasoning on limitations of section 9 jurisdiction. (Para 28 , 29 , 34) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition under section 9. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , seeking a post-award interim order directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,108/- each to the Petitioners towards reimbursement of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) tax paid by them on behalf of the partnership firm, M/s. Chander Niwas.
2. The relevant facts leading to the present petition are as follows:
3. The parties to the present petition are partners of a partnership firm namely M/s. Chander Niwas, which owns and manages a multistoried building situated at Premises No. 10B, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071. The sole source of income of the firm is derived from the exploitation of the said property, which is partly occupied by tenants
Court dismissed a post-award petition for reimbursement under Section 9, affirming such claims must be resolved within the ongoing Section 34 proceedings, emphasizing limited jurisdiction.
When parties agree on an amount of damages in case of breach of contract, the claimant is not required to prove the damages in a general sense, as the agreement itself serves as evidence of the quant....
Unsuccessful party may invoke post-award Section 9 for interim measures like bank guarantee extension in rare compelling cases meeting higher threshold, preserving disputed amounts pending Section 34....
The arbitrator cannot review its own award on merits; only clerical or computational errors can be corrected under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Scope of an arbitration agreement is limited to the parties who entered into it and those claiming under or through them, Courts under English Law have, in certain cases, also applied the 'Group of C....
The court clarified the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing its role in providing interim measures and the need for enforcement to be pursued through execution pro....
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a mandatory effect, and once the conditions are fulfilled, the court is obligated to refer the parties to arbitration.
The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the Tribunal unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that no fair minded person could do.
The words 'Arbitral Tribunal' in Section 9(3) of Act have to take colour from all said provisions and thus have to be interpreted as Arbitral Tribunal constituted to adjudicate disputes which have ar....
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
