Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ramanbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs Religare Finvest Ltd on 10 May, 2022

Author: Sanjeev Narula

Bench: Sanjeev Narula

                          $~33
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +        O.M.P. (COMM) 71/2022
                                   RAMANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL                         .... Petitioner
                                                    Through:    Mr. Yashasvi Virender, Mr. Dharta,
                                                                Mr. Dhruv Garg and Ms. Stuti
                                                                Chopra, Advocates.

                                                    versus

                                   RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.                             ..... Respondent
                                                    Through:    Mr. Sanjeev Singh and Ms. Pallavi
                                                                Aggarwal, Advocates.

                                   CORAM:
                                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
                                                  ORDER

% 10.05.2022 I.A. 7273/2022 (on behalf of the Respondent/ Applicant seeking condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the reply)

1. For the grounds and reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the reply is condoned. The reply be taken on record

2. The application is disposed of.

O.M.P. (COMM) 71/2022

3. Parties are further directed to file a brief note of submissions in the prescribed format: the submissions should not exceed five pages, along with relevant case law(s), if any, at least one week before the next date of hearing. Copy thereof also be sent to the Ld. Court Master via e-mail, within Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:11.05.2022 12:21:49 the same timeline. The note should concisely indicate the following: (i) the exact dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal, (ii) the claims in respect of which the Petitioner is aggrieved, (iii) the decision as well as the reasoning of the Arbitral Tribunal, qua such claims, with reference to the relevant para and page numbers of the impugned award, and (iv) grounds as to why the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal merits/ does not merit interference, in view of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of each ground of challenge raised.

4. The Petitioner is also directed to file a gist of the award, not exceeding five pages, within the aforementioned timelines.

5. Re-notify on the date already fixed i.e., on 6th July, 2022.

SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 10, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:11.05.2022 12:21:49