The document summarizes a court order from a case between Solitaire Ventures Pte Ltd and Vipul Limited regarding an arbitration matter. The appellant had sought relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act regarding 29.205 acres of land, but the arbitral tribunal rejected the application. The court order notes that the same relief regarding the same land had previously been rejected in two other cases in 2015. The respondent's lawyer argued that the tribunal's decision should be upheld given the prior rejections. The court granted the appellant 3 weeks to provide documents from the prior cases and scheduled another hearing on the matter.
The document summarizes a court order from a case between Solitaire Ventures Pte Ltd and Vipul Limited regarding an arbitration matter. The appellant had sought relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act regarding 29.205 acres of land, but the arbitral tribunal rejected the application. The court order notes that the same relief regarding the same land had previously been rejected in two other cases in 2015. The respondent's lawyer argued that the tribunal's decision should be upheld given the prior rejections. The court granted the appellant 3 weeks to provide documents from the prior cases and scheduled another hearing on the matter.
The document summarizes a court order from a case between Solitaire Ventures Pte Ltd and Vipul Limited regarding an arbitration matter. The appellant had sought relief under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act regarding 29.205 acres of land, but the arbitral tribunal rejected the application. The court order notes that the same relief regarding the same land had previously been rejected in two other cases in 2015. The respondent's lawyer argued that the tribunal's decision should be upheld given the prior rejections. The court granted the appellant 3 weeks to provide documents from the prior cases and scheduled another hearing on the matter.
+ ARB. A. (COMM.) 6/2020 & I.As.1742/2020, 1744/2020 M/S SOLITAIRE VENTURES PTE LTD & ORS. ..... Appellant Through Mr.P.S.Bindra witih Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advs. Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Akshit Mago, Advs for petitioner no.2.
versus
M/S VIPUL LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Gaurav Duggal with Ms.Nidhi Mohan Parashan, Advs for R-1 to 8. Mr.Rahul Malhotra, Adv for R-9. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI ORDER % 11.03.2020
1. The present appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) assails the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by the three member Arbitral Tribunal rejecting the appellant’s application under Section 17 of the Act. 2. By way of the aforesaid application under Section 17 of the Act, though the appellant had initially sought various reliefs, it had pressed only prayers A & B, pertaining to land measuring 29.205 acres before the learned Tribunal. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that while rejecting the application, the Tribunal had also noted the fact that the same reliefs qua the very same land already stood rejected by this Court vide its
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:MANJU BHATT Signing Date:12.03.2020 14:47:44 order dated 10.03.2015 passed in O.M.P. 1123/2012 and O.M.P.624/2014, being petitions under Section 9 of the Act preferred by the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice submits that the very same pleas raised by the appellant in the present appeal were also raised by the appellant in its aforesaid two petitions under Section 9 of the Act and were specifically rejected by this Court on 10.03.2015 and, therefore, contends that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant’s prayer seeking restraint orders qua the very same land measuring 29.205 acres. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be dismissed. 4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted three weeks time to place on record copies of the pleadings in O.M.P. 1123/2012 and O.M.P.624/2014 along with supporting affidavit. 5. At request, list on 28.04.2020.