Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.Sounthar, J
S.Madhan – Appellant
Versus
A.Venkateshwaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to rule on its own jurisdiction under section 16. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. the issue of forgery regarding signatures must be resolved with evidence, not solely by expert opinion. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 14) |
| 3. judicial intervention in arbitration is generally limited to exceptional cases and not during preliminary objections. (Para 11 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. the petition was dismissed confirming the tribunal's order. (Para 20) |
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .
2. The respondents herein initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.9,34,26,256/- with interest from the petitioner herein and another. According to the respondents, the petitioner herein and another borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/- from the respondents on 10.12.2015 agreeing to repay the same on or before 30.12.2016 together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
3. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the arbitration proceedings filed a petition under
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
