CASE NO. M.A.NO. 1235 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4676 OF 2018
IN THIS MATTER OUR FOUNDER MR. MUKESH KHER HAD APPEARED AND ASSISTED BY MR. PRIYANK KHER (MANAGING PARTNER - LITIGATION- KHER AND KHER LAW OFFICES)
The case "Sarika versus Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (M.P.) & Ors." involved directives issued by the Supreme Court concerning the preservation and maintenance of the Mahakaleshwar Temple in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. The Court considered reports from expert committees and project reports from various entities, including the Ujjain Smart City Ltd. and the Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee.
Key directives included:
The Court ordered compliance reports to be submitted by December 15, 2020, and scheduled further monitoring in January 2021. The directives aimed to ensure the preservation of the temple's heritage and religious significance while addressing concerns regarding structural stability and cultural practices.
24139_2019_32_1502_23776_Judgement_01-Sep-2020 (pdf)
DownloadWe had filed a Section 34 petition for our client before a commercial court in Delhi, whereby we had challenged the arbitral award passed by a sole arbitrator who was unilaterally appointed by the respondent company which is a financial institution Rattan India Finance Pvt. Ltd. .
CASE NO. OMP(COMM) NO. 12/2021 CNR NO. DLNW01-005779-2021 TITLED AS FOCUS IMAGING & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS RATTAN INDIA FINANCE PVT. LTD. (THIS CASE WAS LEAD BY OUR MANAGING PARTNER PRIYANK KHER)
The award was questioned primarily on the grounds that without dealing with the objections of jurisdiction and without dealing with the correspondences exchanged with the petitioner (our client), the award was passed and hence same is liable to be set aside. Further we sought the award to be set aside as the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator was non-est in law and contrary to public policy and in support of this submission, we relied on the judgement of the Apex court in case title as Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr v. HSCC (India) Ltd. {2019 SCC Online SC 1517} https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/27558/27558_2019_6_1501_18525_Judgement_26-Nov-2019.pdf
FOCUS VS RATTAN INDIA JUDGEMENT 20230802134427 (pdf)
DownloadCASE NO. OP NO. 221/2021, THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
WE AGAIN HAD AN OCCASSION TO FIGHT THIS CASE FOR OUR CLIENT WHEREBY WE CHALLENGED THE ARBITRAL AWARD PASSED BY A SOLE ARBITRATOR WHO WAS UNILATERALY APPOINTED BY THE RESPONDED IN THIS MATTER WHICH WAS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK.
THIS CASE WAS ALSO DEALT BY OUR MANAGING PARTNER MR PRIYANK KHER AND OUR ASSOCAITE IN MADRAS.
CASE NO. OP 144/2021 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
WE HAD AN OCCASSION TO FIGHT THIS CASE FOR OUR CLIENT WHEREBY WE CHALLENGED THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE APPOINTED IN MADRAS BY TATA CAPITAL FINANCE SERVICES LIMITED AGAINST OUR CLIENT WHO WAS IN DELHI. IN A PETITION FILED BY TATA CAPITAL IN A SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT'1996, WE ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT FOR REFERENCE TO THE ARBITRATOR, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR AS THE ENTIRE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE IN NEW DELHI AND EVEN IN THE AGREEMENT NO PERMANENT SEAT IS FIXED BY THE PARTIES. WHAT WAS AGREED IN THE AGREEMEMT IS THAT THE ARBITRATION HAS TO BE HELD AS PER THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, THAT MEANS FACILITATING THE PARTIES OF BOTH SIDES FOR THEIR APPERANCE AND TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, IN OTHER WORDS CONVINIENCE OF THE PARTIES ARE RELEVANT. SECTION 20 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT WAS EMPHASISED.
THIS CASE WAS ALSO DEALT BY OUR MANAGING PARTNER MR PRIYANK KHER AND OUR ASSOCAITE IN MADRAS.