The Single Judge dismissed the arbitration petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, order after the parties settled the dispute and signed consent terms.
The arbitration petition was disposed of based on the consent terms signed by the parties.
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.
arbpl135.11.sxw
1
ssm
Reliance Capital Limited Vs.
M/s. Pragati Construction & Anr.
....Petitioner.
....Respondents.
Mr. Rahul Mehta i/by M/s. KMC Legal Venture for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Naik, representative of Petitioner is present. Mr. Prakash K. Deshmukh for the Respondents. Mr. Vidyadhar Mumbaikar, representative of Respondent is present.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2011
P.C.:
In the Petition, filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties have settled the matter and accordingly signed the consent terms. Representative of principle borrower-Respondent No.1 is present in the Court and so also the Officer of the Petitioner Company. The consent terms are also signed by the respective advocates. The consent terms is taken on record and marked "X" for identification.
terms.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dispose of an arbitration petition under Section 9 since the parties have settled the matter and signed consent terms.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Reliance Capital Limited
M/s. Pragati Construction
Anoop V. Mota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
