An order disposing of an arbitration application and petition upon the respondent accepting termination and forfeiture, leading to the applicant withdrawing both proceedings.
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.
Nitin
912-ARBAP-105-2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2014
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 711 OF 2014
Mrs. Ruhi Chauhan … Applicant/Petitioner Versus Totem Infrastructure Limited … Respondent
Mr. Amit Vyas a/w. Mr. Varin M. i/b. Economic Law Practice for the Applicant/Petitioner.
Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2014
P.C.:
The learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent states that the Director of the Respondent is unable to remain present before
this Court due to some prior commitments. However, he states that Mr. K.V. Rao who has signed the subject MOU on behalf of the Respondent as its authorized representative is present in Court and as the authorized representative of the Respondent Company has instructed him to state
that the Respondent has no objection as regards the forfeiture of the earnest money by the Applicant and also that the Respondent accepts the termination of the MOU dated 26th April, 2014 as valid and subsisting.
Nitin 2 912-ARBAP-105-2014
The statements are accepted. In view thereof, the learned Advocate for the Applicant on instructions seeks to withdraw the above Application as well as Petition. The above Application as well as Petition are accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.
( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )
Mrs. Ruhi Chauhan
Totem Infrastructure Limited
S.J. KATHAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
