The High Court of Delhi disposed of this appeal after noting that the respondent conceded it would not interfere with the sale of ore, leaving disputes to arbitration 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.
$~4
versus M/S MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS..... Respondents Through Mr.J.P.Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Akhil Chhabra, Ms.Ritu Chhabra, Ms.Udisha, Ms.Manisha Mehta, Ms.Vaishali Tanwar, Ms.Riya Gandhi and Ms.Mrigna Shekhar, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 14.05.2018
We have heard counsel for the parties and noticed that the orders made during the course of the proceedings under Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 04.07.2017 and 12.02.2018 to protect the appellant’s interest, the respondent has fairly conceded that it would not interfere with the sale of ore in case any dispute with respect to the evaluation of the ore; if it arises, that would be subject to the arbitration proceedings given that the appellant has concededly invoked the arbitration clause in that case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MAY 14, 2018 ndn
M/s P.E.C Ltd
M/s Maa Tarini Industries Ltd
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
