ANOOP SHARMA vs PUKHRAJ SINGH CHUG AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2025, CM APPLs. 6446/2025, 6447/2025, 6448/2025 & 6449/2025 ANOOP SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Upamanyu Sharma, Adv. and Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. versus PUKHRAJ SINGH CHUG AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Pakhiddey, Mr. Manav Gill and Mr. Shivang Gupta, Advs. for R-1 to R-6 Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advs. for R-7, R-11, R-13, R-15, R-17, R- 20-23, R-28-41 Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Shreesh Pathak, Advs. for R-12, R-14, R-16, R-18 & R-19, R-24 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 03.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This appeal assails judgment dated 23 August 2024, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (I) (COMM) 273/2024 and order dated 13 November 2024, whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT FAO(OS) (COMM) 20/2025 Page 1 of 20 KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2025 20:47:00 19961, has been disallowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. We agree that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, but only on the side of leniency. The learned Single Judge has visited the appellant with costs of ₹ 50,000/-. In our view, the costs are required to be enhanced. 3. Towards this end, we put it to Mr. Upamanyu Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that, given the nature of the present appeal, if we were not in agreement with his submissions, it might invite enhancement of costs. He submits that his instructions are to press the appeal. 4. We have therefore heard Mr. Upamanyu Sharma at great length. We h