This order permitted the withdrawal of an arbitration petition filed by the petitioner. The court noted that the parties had submitted consent terms settling their dispute before the arbitrator, leading to the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn.
Petition under Section 37 dismissed as withdrawn; no order as to costs passed.
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.
arbp828-14.doc
1/1
sg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.828 OF 2014
Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner vs. Godrej Properties Ltd. ...Respondent
Mr. Chirag Mody, i/b. Ashok Purohit & Co., for the Petitioner.
Ms. Chandana Salgaoncar, for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
28 JANUARY 2016
P.C. :
. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitration petition under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be withdrawn by consent terms tendered before the arbitrator.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd.
Godrej Properties Ltd.
S.C. Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
