9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of arbitration agreement, maintainability of application u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In the judgment by the Delhi High Court, the appeal was against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25th May, 2009, which concluded that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The Single Judge held that the application u/s 9 of the Act was not maintainable and that the findings would not prevent the appellant from seeking remedies under appropriate law. The High Court, comprising of Mukul Mudgal and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, JJ., found no reason to disagree with the Single Judge's conclusion on the maintainability of the application u/s 9 of the Act, based on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 531, the High Court affirmed the Single Judge's findings. The appellant's senior counsel sought to withdraw the appeal and the application u/s 9 of the Act to file a civil suit, emphasizing that the judgment should not hinder the matters to be raised in the suit. The respondent's counsel argued that since the application u/s 9 had been decided on merits, no further clarification was necessary upon withdrawal of the appeal. The High Court noted that the Single Judge had already permitted the appellant to seek remedies against the respondents under appropriate law, and that the observations were confined to the context of the application u/s 9 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and the pending application was disposed of accordingly.
|
