In this arbitration petition concerning an agreement, the single judge held that a petition challenging fees fixed by an arbitrator by seeking appointment of another arbitrator does not fall within Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The arbitration petition was dismissed.
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.
arbp307-11
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.307 OF 2011
Pravin J. Solanki & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s.
The Mulund Yeshwant CHS Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr.Suresh Dubey for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2011.
P.C. :-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator based on objection to fees fixed by the arbitrator falls within the ambit of section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Pravin J. Solanki & Anr.
The Mulund Yeshwant CHS Ltd. & Ors.
S.J. VAZIFDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
