Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
EMCO LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of arbitral disputes and proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner argues the arbitral mandate continues. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 3. respondent argues the mandate has terminated. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. court's view on reliance on diac's position. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 5. interpretation of sections 23(4) and 29a(1) of the 1996 act. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 6. issues regarding the definition of "pleadings". (Para 34 , 39) |
| 7. court supports extension of arbitrator's mandate. (Para 42 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Ordinarily, petitions for extension of the mandate of Arbitral Tribunals are two minute affairs, where the court has only to examine when the mandate terminated and extend it as sought by the parties. Contest is rare in such cases.
2. However, in this case, a simple case of the extension of the arbitral mandate has taken on varied hues, not the least because of the legal inventiveness of learned counsel for both sides.
3. In connection with two Purchase Orders dated 21 December 2004 and 7 January 2005 placed on the petitioner by the respondent, disputes arose. The purchase orders envisaged resolution of disputes by arbitration. As the parties were not able
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
