- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gesellschaft Fur Biotechnologische Forschun Gmbh v. Kopran Laboratories Ltd. And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The only content provided from the opinion is the single word "Order." No factual background, names of parties, or procedural history are available in the provided text.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The text made available consists only of the word "Order" and does not include any reasoning, analysis, or explanation by the court. The basis for the court’s decision cannot be determined from the provided excerpt.
Holding and Implications
Not ascertainable from the provided text
The consequences of the court’s decision, both for the parties and as a matter of legal precedent, cannot be identified because the operative portions of the order are not included in the provided material.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent 1, which is the contesting respondent, has chosen not to appear in spite of service of notice.
3. Disputes have arisen between the parties out of an agreement which contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:
“Any disputes, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Reconciliation of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris. The venue of arbitration shall be Bombay, Maharashtra, India.”
4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (original side) while hearing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directed the claims/disputes raised in the suit to be referred to the sole arbitration of a retired Chief Justice with the venue at Bombay. The singular grievance raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the High Court has made an appointment in departure from the terms of the arbitration clause and while doing so has not even assigned any reason for not referring the disputes/claims for settlement by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation of the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris.
5. For the short reason, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-9-2001 is set aside. The case is sent back to the High Court of Bombay for decision afresh and appointment of arbitrator in accordance with law. No order as to the costs.
Alert