Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
DR MAHESH Y REDDY – Appellant
Versus
KEVIN MARCUS WILLIAM GOVINDER SINGH OLAUSSON – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of a valid arbitration clause. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and time-bar against claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 3. opposition to claims of fraud, time-bar issues. (Para 6) |
| 4. scope of inquiry under section 11 of the arbitration act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 5. differentiated roles of court and arbitrator. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. appointment of arbitrator and disposal of petitions. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 7. disposal of petitions with arbitration appointment. (Para 19) |
2. Mr. Ritesh Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that in view of two agreements dated 01.09.2016 and 29.03.2022, there exists a valid arbitration clause and if any dispute arises between the parties, the same is amenable to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator.
3. According to him, under the agreement, certain services were to be discharged/ rendered by the petitioner to the respondent as a consultant. He, therefore, contends that in lieu of the services having been rendered to the respondent, the petitioner is entitled for appropriate sum. According to him, as of now, a claim of Rs. 5.25 Crores is outstanding against the respondent which has not been paid.
4. The aforesaid submissions
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
