The single judge had rejected the respondent’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the Division Bench set aside the single judge’s order and appointed a fresh arbitrator.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/legal-analysis-of-claim-for-loss-of-profit-in-delayed-contract/
The arbitral tribunal, on the basis of its findings held that a total sum of 76,34,423.86/- had to be duly accounted after deducting the first respondent’s share. On the basis of this finding and and the agreed neutral auditor’s calculations, the 3 figures were accepted by the tribunal.
Jose, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, pointed out that the appellant, in fact, did not seek a reference; rather it was the first respondent who made that claim.
The allegations in the counter claim are only to the effect that the first respondent set up a firm within 6 months of the leaving the appellant’s firm.
However, where the condition contemplated under Section 17 – such as fraud exists, then subject to proof of fraud (based on specific averments) the date when limitation begins to be seen is date of knowledge of the plaintiff.
Appellant(s) VERSUS K.MOHAN RAO Respondent(s)
Date : 02-03-2023
This appeal was called on for hearing today.
JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s)
Mr. Jose, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Case Title: SUPER DIAMOND TOOLS Vs. K.MOHAN RAO (2023 INSC 192)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006216-006216 / 2012
