Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (4.13 seconds)
Documents citing Indowind Energy Ltd vs Wescare (I) Ltd.& Anr on 27 April, 2010

Ultra Home Constructions (P) Ltd. vs Choice Hotels International Inc. & Ors. on 13 January, 2012

The said decision has no bearing to the present case as the issue which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering in the said judgment was as to whether Indowind who is one of the promoters of Subuthi could be said to be a party to the Arbitration Agreement between Subuthi and Wescare. The same pertained to oral contract being not permissible in law. In the light of said issue the Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of the Act and held that as Indowind which is a company had not signed the agreement as Indowind it cannot be said to be a party to the Agreement between Subuthi and Wescare and thus not party to the Arbitration Agreement. However, in the present case there is a written and signed Assignment Agreement between defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. The plaintiff has agreed to the Unilateral Assignment in the Franchise and Hotel Operation Agreements in terms of Clause 13.4.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

Bharam Parkash And Others vs M/S Parkwood Infrastructure Pvt Ltd And ... on 1 February, 2012

The judgment cited in Indowind Energy's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, the controversy was in respect of appointment of an Arbitrator by the learned Chief Justice of Madras High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act on a petition filed by Wescare-respondent No.1 therein vide order dated 1.8.2008 and that was challenged by the appellant and the same was set aside qua the appellant but affirmed in so far as other FAO No.560 of 2012 #9# respondents i.e Subuthi and in that case also, the subject matter under Section 9 of the Act was not even under consideration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Jagson Airlines Ltd. vs Bannari Amman Exports Ltd. & Anr. on 5 November, 2012

Relying on the decision in Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 306, Mr. Nath submitted that merely because two companies have common shareholders or common Board of Directors, would not make them a single entity. He submitted that the fact that JIL and IPWC had merged with Jagson India did not make them the same entity. They continued to remain distinct entities. JIL could not be made liable for the acts of IPWC or JAL and vice-versa.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Mr Peter Caddy vs Mr Cheiryan Abraham on 13 August, 2012

3. Sri Rego, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Arbitral Tribunal is required to resolve the disputes if any, arising out of the partnership deed and not the disputes which allegedly arose earlier before the execution of the partnership deed. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indowind Energy Ltd. vs. Wescare (I)Ltd. & another, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1793.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1