The court disposed of an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that allegations of financial withdrawal by one party cannot defeat the right to refer disputes to arbitration where an agreement exists.
Disputes referred to sole arbitration of Shri S.R. Shah; application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
ARBAP103-08=26.8
PNP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.103 OF 2008
Sharadkumar Madhavji Mehta ..Applicant.
Vs.
M/s. R.R. Traders and another ..Respondents.
Mr. Manish P. Jagani for the Applicant. Ms. Savita Bangera i/b Mr. Anil R. Mishra for Respondents 1 and 2.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
26 August 2010.
P.C. :
2
ARBAP103-08=26.8
PNP
unless those are brought back, there would be no reference under Section 11(6). Apart from the fact that the allegation has been denied by the Applicant, this can be no defence to a reference being made to arbitration in terms of Section 11(6). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents does not deny the existence of the arbitration agreement.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether allegations of withdrawal of partnership monies can bar the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sharadkumar Madhavji Mehta
M/s. R.R. Traders
another
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
