Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)

Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd on 28 February, 2017

16. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Alupro's case (supra) has categorically held that issuance of notice u/s 21 of the Act is mandatory and in case no notice is issued, the arbitration proceedings are non-est. It was further observed that requirement of receipt of notice by the respondent in terms of Section 21 of the Act is a condition precedent to the the commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

M/S Bhandari Udyog Ltd vs Industrial Facilitation Council & Anr on 20 February, 2015

13. The bare perusal of this clause would show that only the courts situated at New Delhi would have the jurisdiction. The words New Delhi is not qualified with the words "only", "exclusively". Clause 9.5 reiterates that Courts at Delhi alone shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction. It seems that the venue for arbitration was New Delhi but as such Delhi Courts had the jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Courts at Andhra Pradesh. Thus it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of this court is barred . The judgment Bhandari Udyog (supra) has clearly laid down that court within whose jurisdiction the proceedings have taken place would have the jurisdiction. The proceedings in the present case has taken place in Delhi. Therefore, this court has the territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the argument with regard to territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable and is liable to be rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 38 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1