Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Raymond Limited vs Akshaypat Singhania And Anr on 8 February, 2019

Heritage Housing Corporation Through ... vs Kesri Jamshed Randaria on 5 June, 2023

Also in Raymond Ltd. v. Akshaypat Singhania8, this Court has held that in a challenge to an interim order under Section 37, the Court cannot go into the facts and law on every aspect and substitute its own opinion in place of that of the arbitral tribunal. What the Court has to look into, is whether the order passed by the tribunal was one that is a plausible view.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Ambrish H. Soni vs Chetan Narendra Dhakan on 16 July, 2024

i. The Scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is now more than well settled. A conjoint reading of the judgements of this Court in the case of Elster Instromet B.V. (supra), Max Healthcare Institute Limited (supra), Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Raymond Limited (supra) it is clear that the Court (i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions (ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view, (iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary Shubham 12/20 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2024 01:13:39 ::: 13 901-ARBP 100-2024 conclusion, (iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and (v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. Thus, it is in this backdrop that I must consider whether any case for interference has been made out by Dr. Warunjikar in Arbitration Petition No. 100 of 2024.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chetan Narendra Dhakan vs Alnrish H. Soni on 16 July, 2024

i. The Scope of judicial interference under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act is now more than well settled. A conjoint reading of the judgements of this Court in the case of Elster Instromet B.V. (supra), Max Healthcare Institute Limited (supra), Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Raymond Limited (supra) it is clear that the Court (i) will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Arbitral Tribunal and substitute its own view except when the Arbitral Tribunal has acted arbitrarily, or capriciously or where the Arbitral Tribunal has ignored the well settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions (ii) cannot reassess the material based on which the Tribunal has arrived at its decision so long as the Tribunal has considered the material and had taken a plausible view, (iii) cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, if the discretion of the Tribunal had been exercised in a reasonable and judicious manner, solely on the ground that would have come to a contrary Shubham 12/20 ::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2024 01:13:45 ::: 13 901-ARBP 100-2024 conclusion, (iv) that matters of interpretation of the provisions of a contract lie primarily within the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal and (v) cannot constantly interfere with and micro manage proceedings which are pending before Arbitral Tribunals. Thus, it is in this backdrop that I must consider whether any case for interference has been made out by Dr. Warunjikar in Arbitration Petition No. 100 of 2024.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Indo Spirits vs Pernod Ricard India Pvt Ltd And Ors on 18 February, 2026

In support of this, reliance would be placed on Augmont Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. One97 Communication Ltd.9, Karanja Terminal & Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Sahara Dredging Ltd.10, Raymond Ltd. v. Akshaypat Singhania11, Shabnam Dhillon v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.12, and Godrej Properties Ltd. v. Frontier Home Developers (P) Ltd.13 to submit that interference is warranted only where the Impugned Order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from patent illegality.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1