The court dismissed the appeal against an order referring parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on the exhaustive nature of Section 37.
Appeal dismissed; no costs.
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.
$~5
M/S HS OBEROI AND COMPANY ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.Pawan Kumar Mittal, Advocate.
versus
M/S I U P JINDAL METALS & ALLOYS LTD ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.P.K.Mittal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R % 02.02.2016
arbitration.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
FEBRUARY 02, 2016 ‘vn’
Page 2 of 2
FAO(OS) 505/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal lies against an order under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 referring parties to arbitration.
Whether the impugned order allowing Section 8 application is appealable under Section 37 of the said Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Today Hotels (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Intecture India Designs Pvt.Ltd.Relied on¶11
M/s Today Hotels (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Intecture India Designs Pvt.Ltd.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s HS Oberoi and Company
M/s I U P Jindal Metals & Alloys Ltd
Pradeep Nandrajog
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
