Back
SUPREME COURT
Justices, J
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Applied Electronics Ltd. (M/s.)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contested the legal application of cpc in arbitration. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. responses supporting cpc's applicability in arbitration. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legislative intent supports minimal judicial intervention. (Para 6 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling on the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 13) |
| 5. cpc not applicable; cross-objections not maintainable. (Para 28 , 29) |
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal tenability of the order dated 28th July, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi wherein a Division Bench in CM No. 15530 of 2013 placing reliance on Satpal P. Malhotra And Others v. Puneet Malhotra And Others , Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2010 decided on 14th June, 2013 that has followed the decision ins MCD v. International Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd., 2004 (3) SCC 250 has expressed the view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') would be applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act). Be it stated, while expressing the view that the CPC is applicable to an appeal preferred under S.37 of the Act, the High Court has in the impugned order opined that
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
