LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label arbitration act and corporation laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arbitration act and corporation laws. Show all posts
Friday, May 10, 2013

ARBITRATION ACT= The matter was, thereafter, taken up by the designate Judge who came to a finding that the agreement dated 24.05.2005 was not legal and valid and, therefore, the disputes between the parties arising out of the said agreement could not be referred to an arbitrator. The application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was, therefore, dismissed. 9. It is the said decision of the designate Judge, which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The issue regarding the continued existence of the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the main agreement itself being declared void, was considered by the 7-Judge Bench in SBP & Co. (supra) and it was held that an arbitration agreement could stand independent of the main agreement and did not necessarily become otiose, even if the main agreement, of which it is a part, is declared void. has to first decide his own jurisdiction and whether the party concerned has approached the right High Court.; whether there is an arbitration agreement and as to whether the person who has made the request before him, is a party to such agreement. ; whether the claim was a dead one or a long-barred claim, that was sought to be resurrected. = The above views expressed by the 7-Judge Bench and by the learned Single Judge are sufficient to dispose of these appeals. In the light of what has been indicated hereinbefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment and the order of the designated Judge once again and directing that the matter be again considered de novo in the light of the observations made hereinabove and the various decisions cited at the Bar.

›
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4596 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C)No...
Tuesday, October 16, 2012

IA No. 2153/2012 has been filed by defendant No. 1 seeking stay of the suit and reference to arbitration in terms of clause 15 of Section (iii) of the contract between the parties. The application has been opposed by the plaintiff primarily on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.- A perusal of clause 15.3 would show that the parties agreed that the Courts of the place from where the acceptance of tender is issued, alone shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract. ThisCS(OS) 23/2012 Page 13 of 13 clause clearly contemplates adjudication of disputes by a Civil Court though only by the Court at the place where the acceptance of the tender is issued, i.e., New Delhi (INDIA). This clause in the contract clearly indicates that the parties did not enter into a binding arbitration agreement and contemplated resolution of their disputes through the process of a Civil Court at New Delhi. It would be pertinent to recall here that in Wellington Associates Ltd. (supra) also clause 4 of the agreement between the parties provided for jurisdiction of Bombay Courts in case of any dispute arising in connection with the agreement. It is true that the word “suit” used in clause 4 of the agreement in Wellington Associates Ltd. (supra) has not been used in clause 15.3 of the agreement in the case before this Court, but, that, to my mind, would not be of any consequence, considering the fact that clause 15.3 envisages adjudication by a Civil Court and it does not pertain to place of the Court, which would have jurisdiction in respect of the arbitration proceedings. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application is hereby dismissed.

›
CS(OS) 23/2012                                                                                                                            ...
Friday, October 12, 2012

Whether the parties are to be referred to arbitration, and Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an anti­suit injunction in the facts and circumstances of the present case – Though the Indian Arbitration Act would apply, however, in view of the fact that the parties have chosen London as the venue for the arbitration meetings, the English Courts would have concurrent jurisdiction and therefore the jurisdiction of the English Courts can also be invoked by the parties for taking such measures as are required in support of arbitration. The judgment and order of the Lower Appellate Court on the aspect of anti suit injunction is, therefore, sustained but on a different ground which is mentioned in the body of this Judgment. The above Writ Petition No.7636 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged, with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] lgc 124 of 124

›
      wps­7804.09 & 7636.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7804 OF 2009 ...