Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Diamond Entertainment Technologies Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Religare Finvest Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for appointment of arbitrator. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. loan agreement and disputed payments explained. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. previous arbitration and ongoing disputes detailed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. respondent's objections to arbitration and recovery amount discussed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. multiple arbitrations and res judicata principles analyzed. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. court’s jurisdiction related to sarfaesi act enforcement. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. complementary nature of sarfaesi and drt acts clarified. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. existence of arbitrable disputes confirmed. (Para 36 , 37) |
| 9. interim protection of property during arbitration proceedings. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. no further protection required in light of existing orders. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT
ARB.P.62/2022
1. A Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed for appointment of the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. It is submitted that a loan Agreement dated 10.01.2012 was executed between the petitioners and the respondents. They entered into a supplementary Agreement dated 27.01.2014 bearing Loan Account no. (s
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
