Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court says that the seat of the arbitration is to be determined based on arbitral proceedings and not with cause of action for underlying disputes.
Whilst the court is not unduly bound by the texts or Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule (5) or any other provisions of CPC, the substantial principles for grant of such interim measures cannot be disregarded.
The Delhi High Court held that even if the Contract clearly stated that before resorting to arbitration, the parties agreed to explore Conciliation by the Committee, the same cannot be held to be mandatory in nature. Further, the Court held that in case of urgency, arbitral proceedings can be initiated even when conciliation proceedings were pending.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
Uttaranchal High Court: Emphasizing on the purpose and object of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Division bench of
by Ramkishore Karanam*and Mahasweta M.**
by Hiroo Advani†, Sheikh Yusuf Ali †† and Manav Nagpal†††
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 30
“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., addressed three different petitions between the same parties arising out of the award passed by
by Alabh Anant Lal* & Soham Banerjee**