Arbitration petition under Section 11 dismissed as withdrawn because the petitioner could not serve the respondent, with liberty to file a fresh petition upon locating an alternate address.
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
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Diptiman Acharya, Advocate.
versus
OFFICE PULSE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD ..... Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
O R D E R % 25.01.2024
Mr. Diptiman Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has been unable to serve the respondent. He seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in accordance with law, in the event the petitioner is able to locate a different address of the respondent.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
JANUARY 25, 2024 ‘pv’/
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/06/2024 at 11:24:54
1 provisions across 1 enactments
OYO HOTELS AND HOMES PVT LTD
OFFICE PULSE TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD
Prateek Jalan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
