Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
Mrs.Bharathi Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Rema Vasudevan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial applications for injunction and arbitration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the sale agreement and its conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. dispute over limitations regarding performance under the agreement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's limitations on its role versus arbitrator's authority. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion allowing the appointment of the arbitrator. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
COMMON ORDER
O.A.No.527 of 2025 has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) seeking for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner altering the physical features of the schedule mentioned property pending the arbitral proceedings.
2. Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.394 of 2025 has been filed by the very same applicant seeking for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and respondents 1 to 3 that have arisen under the registered sale agreement dated 16.10.2019.
3. Heard the respective learned counsel on either side.
4. The case of the applicant/petitioner is as follows :
(i) Respondents 1 to 3 entered into a sale agreement dated 16.10.2019 with the applicant,
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
