Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 394 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020

M/S Ashutosh Infra Private Limited vs M/S Pebble Downtown India (P.) Ltd & Ors on 4 December, 2025

This issue also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Krish Spinning (supra) and the Supreme Court reemphasised and reiterated that the scope of examination under Section 11(6-A) is confined to existence of an arbitration agreement on the basis of Section 7 of 1996 Act and nothing else and after the judgment in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is difficult to hold that the observations in Vidya Drolia (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral Court when dealing with issue of "accord and satisfaction" under Section 11 extends to weeding out ex facie non- arbitrable disputes. This judgment is also important and relevant for the present case since it specifically deals with the issue whether on a plea of 'full and final settlement' and "accord and satisfaction", by a party contesting the appointment of the Arbitrator, reference can be refused. Negating this plea, the Supreme Court held that dispute regarding "accord and satisfaction" or full and final settlement of all disputes does not pertain to existence of arbitration agreement and can be adjudicated only by an Arbitral Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S Creative Projects And Contracts ... vs M/S Suncity Projects Pvt Ltd on 20 March, 2024

Further, as noted in Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] , if this duty within the limited compass is not exercised, and the Court becomes too reluctant to intervene, it may undermine the effectiveness of both, arbitration and the Court [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1, para 139 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] .
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Gail (India) Limited vs Kesar Alloys & Metals Private Limited on 25 March, 2022

12. As held in Vidya Drolia and BSNL (supra), where there is not even a vestige of doubt that the claim is ex facie non-arbitrable, the Court will not relegate the parties to arbitration. From the facts as noted above, it is evident Signature Not Verified Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ARB.P. 325/2021 Page 18 of 19 Signing Date:29.03.2022 12:28:04 that the respondent issued the letter terminating the arbitration on 25 th July, 2013 and the first letter of the petitioner under Article 15.1 of the GSA for settlement of the disputes amicably was issued on 22nd August, 2016 whereafter the notice invoking arbitration under Article 15.6 of the GSA was issued on 10th October, 2020. Even taking the sixty day period required to elapse on failure of settlement before issuing notice invoking arbitration, the notice invoking arbitration was required to be issued within three years from 21st October, 2016. Further, all the correspondences by GAIL are unilateral and there is no admission of any liability as claimed by GAIL.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 2 - M Gupta - Full Document

Benetton India Pvt Ltd vs Gini And Jony Ltd on 26 February, 2026

22. Judged by the aforesaid tests, it is obvious that whether the MoU has been novated by the SHA dated 12-4-1996 requires a detailed consideration of the clauses of the two agreements, together with the surrounding circumstances in which these agreements were entered into, and a full consideration of the law on the subject. None of this can be done given the limited jurisdiction of a court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act. As has been held in para 148 of Vidya Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:26.02.2026 13:19:12 ARB. P. 1035/2024 Page 12 of 18 Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] , detailed arguments on whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated cannot possibly be decided in exercise of a limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Also, this case does not fall within the category of cases which ousts arbitration altogether, such as matters which are in rem proceedings or cases which, without doubt, concern minors, lunatics or other persons incompetent to contract. There is nothing vexatious or frivolous in the plea taken by the appellant. On the contrary, a Section 11 court would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable, or when facts are contested. The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Metcon India Realty And Infrastructure ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 2 February, 2023

It must be understood clearly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAURAV ARB.P. 1140/2022 Page 28 of 33 SHARMA Signing Date:02.02.2023 18:18:53 NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000744 that Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] has not resurrected the pre-amendment position on the scope of power as held in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd. [SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618]
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

It is held by the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia (supra) and followed in Hero Electric Vehicles (supra) and Liberty Footwear Company v. Liberty International, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 83, that disputes which cannot be arbitrated are "grant and issue of patents and registrations of trademarks" as they are "exclusive matters falling within the sovereign and government functions" having "erga omnes effect". Dispute in the present suit is an inter-se dispute between two family groups and not the world at large and emanates out of the MOFS and the Sale Deed executed in furtherance thereto and is thus a dispute in personam and not in rem and is amenable to the arbitral process.
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next