The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan was hearing the present matter.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present matter relates to an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein the Petitioner i.e., Sales Corporation sought the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under a Dealership Agreement. The core issue in the said dispute was the existence of an arbitration agreement that governs the resolution of conflicts between the parties involved.
The Petitioner i.e., Sales Corporation argued that Clause 7.6 of the Agreement, which mentioned 'Dispute resolution by Arbitration,' should be interpreted as an arbitration agreement. The said clause includes language stating that any dispute or claim, whether arising out of or relating to the Agreement or not, shall be referred to the courts of New Delhi.
The petitioner in the plea contended that the clause was invoked for arbitration through a communication and that the respondent's reply did not contest the presence of an arbitration clause but rather rejected the request for arbitration. This, the Petitioner argued, indicates an acknowledgment of the arbitration clause.
On the other hand, the Respondent opposed the petition for arbitration and argued that Clause 7.6 does not qualify as an arbitration agreement as stated under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.
It was argued before the court that the clause lacked the necessary intent to resolve disputes through binding arbitration, as merely mentioning ‘arbitration' in the heading does not suffice.
Bu hikaye The Business Guardian dergisinin September 03, 2024 sayısından alınmıştır.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber ? Giriş Yap
Bu hikaye The Business Guardian dergisinin September 03, 2024 sayısından alınmıştır.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber? Giriş Yap
Odisha startup launches autonomous drone service
Bon V Aero has launched a fully autonomous logistics drone service called Air Orca.
ITI Ltd gets orders worth Rs 4,559 cr
With this, ITI Limited has emerged as the lowest bidder for three packages taking the total order value to Rs 4,559 crores, the company informed stock exchanges in a filing on Sunday.
Trump presidency set to benefit India due to US-China rivalry: Moody's Ratings
Trump's trade policy approach would likely bring immediate impacts to the manufacturing sector, the Moody's Ratings said, adding that although a divided Congress might slow down or adjust the scope of such measures.
EPFO clears audit Backlog, pushes reforms ahead of 72nd Foundation Day
Labour Secretary and Chairperson of Executive Committee, Central Board, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Sumita Dawra, presided over the 109th Meeting of the Executive Committee this week in the national capital.
Biz as usual in Canada despite tensions between New Delhi, Ottawa: SBI
State Bank of India (SBI) has not seen any impact in Canada despite the ongoing tensions between New Delhi and Ottawa, a top bank official has said.
FMCG brands drive premiumisation amid inflation
Despite persistent inflation and sluggish demand, several leading FMCG and retail brands are doubling down on their premiumization strategies, reshaping their approach to appeal to discerning customers.
Supreme Court Issued Notice To Delhi Tree Authority And Officers: What Procedure Followed In Tree Felling?
The Supreme Court in the case MC Mehta versus The Union Of India And Ors observed and has issued notice to the Tree Authority and the Tree Officers who are being appointed under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, in a petition filed seeking to prevent the Delhi government in order to permit tree felling under the Act without prior permission from the court.
SC: LIS PENDENS DOCTRINE KICKS IN WHEN PETITION IS FILED AND NOT WHEN COURT ISSUED NOTICE; IT APPLIES EVEN IF PETITION WAS IN DEFECT
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing the present matter.
Delhi High Court: Cannot Approve MCD Not Paying Wages, Retiral Benefits To Its Employees; If They Default Must Suffer Interest
The Delhi High Court in the case Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Bijender Singh observed and has stated that it can never be an approver to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, MCD for not paying wages or retiral benefits to its employees.
Delhi High Court To Centre: Take Policy Decision On Guidelines For Foreigners With Criminal Cases And Expired Indian Visas
The Delhi High Court in the case Court On Its Own Motion v State observed and has asked the Union Government to take a policy decision as to whether certain guidelines ought to be framed at national level in respect of foreigners against whom criminal cases are lodged and whose Indian visas have expired.
