Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing A.M. Mair & Co vs Gordhandass Sagarmull on 30 November, 1950

Anderson Wright Ltd vs Moran And Company on 1 November, 1951

The appellate Judges of the High Court in our opinion held rightly that the decision in A. M. Mair and Company v. Gordhandass (1) was not in any sense conclusive in the present case on the question of the dispute in the suit being included in the arbitration agreement. The report shows that the dispute in that case was whether the appellants had made the contract in their own right as principals or on behalf of the Bengal Jute Mill Company as agents of the latter. The decision -of this question was held to turn upon a true construction of the contract and consequently it was a dispute under or arising out of or concerning the contract. The judgment proceeds on the footing that there was in fact a contract between the parties and the only dispute was in which character they were parties to it, the respondents contending that the appellants were not bound as principals while the latter said that they were. Mr. Justice Fazl Ali in delivering the judgment pointed out that the error into which the learned Judges of the appellate bench of the High Court appeared to have fallen was their regarding the dispute raised by the respondent in respect of the position of the appellants under the contract as having the same consequence as a dispute as to the contract never having been entered into. In this case it is certainly not admitted that the respondent was a party to the contract. In fact that is the subject-matter of controversy in the suit itself. But, as has been said already, the question having been raised , in this application, under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court has undoubted jurisdiction to decide it for the purpose of finding as to whether or not there is a binding arbitration agreement between the, parties to the suit. It has been said by Chakravartti C.J. and in our opinion rightly, that if the person whose concern with the agreement is in question is a signatory to,the contract and formally a (1) [1950] S.C.R. 792.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 54 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Anderson Wright Ltd. vs Moran And Company on 1 November, 1954

13. The appellate Judges of the High Court in our opinion held rightly that the decision in A. M. Mair and Company v. Gordhandass ([1950] S.C.R. 792) was not in any sense conclusive in the present case on the question of the dispute in the suit being included in the arbitration agreement. The report shows that the dispute in that case was whether the appellants had made the contract in their own right as principals or on behalf of the Bengal Jute Mill Company as agents of the latter. The decision of this question was held to turn upon a true construction of the contract and consequently it was a dispute under or arising out of or concerning the contract. The judgment proceeds on the footing that there was in fact a contract between the parties and the only dispute was in which character they were parties to it, the respondents contending that the appellants were not bound as principals while the latter said that they were. Mr. Justice Fazl Ali in delivering the judgment pointed out that the error into which the learned Judges of the appellate bench of the High Court appeared to have fallen was their regarding the dispute raised by the respondent in respect of the position of the appellants under the contract as having the same consequence as a dispute as to the contract never having been entered into.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - V Bose - Full Document

Mumbai International Airport Limited vs Airports Authority Of India on 28 February, 2022

"10. That brings me to the core question for adjudication in this appeal i.e. whether the Arbitral Tribunal is right in holding the disputes to be not arbitrable. The Supreme Court in A.M. Mair & Co. v. Gordhandass Sagarmull MANU/SC/0040/1950: AIR 1951 9 held that the test to determine whether a claim in dispute is covered by arbitration Clause in a contract is whether it is necessary to have recourse to the contract to settle the dispute that has arisen.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Gujarat Water Supply Sewerage Board vs Unique Electors (Gujarat) (Pvt.) Ltd. ... on 22 March, 1983

6. The first authority which is required to be referred to is the case of A. M. Mair and Co. v. Gordhandas Sagarmull . It was a case where the arbitration clause in a contract provided for reference to arbitration of all matters questions, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning...or relating to this contract and the question was whether a party to the contract was acting merely as a broker; or was the principal bound by the contract. It was held:
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs Joseph Anchilose on 10 February, 1989

May be the Arbitrator had discretion not to state reasons on his award, but he had no jurisdiction to over-step the limits set by the terms of the contract whereby Arbitration was provided for. It was so decided by this court in a series of decisions. (vide (1987) 1 Ker LT 366, (1987) 1 Ker LT 604, (1987) 1 Ker LT 781 and (1988) 1 Ker LT 541 etc.). It was so stated by the Supreme Court in Alopi Prasad's case (AIR 1960 SC 588) (supra) and Continental Construction Co. (AIR 1988 SC 1166) (supra) that a contract is not frustrated merely because of alteration in the circumstances in which the contract was made. Unforeseen circumstances justifying enhancement in the rates or prices not being within the comprehension of works contract particularly in cases where the contractor was alleged to be responsible for delay, the Arbitrator travelled beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining disputes for enhanced rates contrary to the terms of the contract. We do not think that it is necessary for us to high-light this point any further, because we are upholding the preliminary objections which ought to have precluded the Arbitrator from entertaining and continuing with the reference.
Kerala High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Balsukh Refractories And Ceramics Ltd. vs Hindusthan Steel Ltd. And Ors. on 23 July, 1976

17. Thus on a consideration of the aforesaid decisions we have no hesitation to hold that the appointment of the opposite party No. 2 as sole arbitrator cannot be held to be invalid on the mere plea that he is an employee of the opposite party No. I in the absence of any material to show that he is biased in favour of the opposite party No. 1. The question whether there has been a frustration of contract or not cannot be decided in the instant application under Section 9 read with Section 31 and Section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The scope of the application is to decide whether there is an arbitration agreement in the contract entered into between, the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 and whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator is in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner failed to supply goods in accordance with the terms of the contract. The question whether the non-delivery of such goods is due to the frustration of the contract or not is a matter relating to the merits and the same is to be decided in the arbitration proceeding and not in this application. It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the decision , A. M. Mair and Co. v. Gordhandas Saggarmull where it has been held by the Supreme Court "If, therefore, we come to the conclusion that both the disputes raised by the respondents fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, then there is an end of the matter, for the arbitrators would have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the disputes, and we are not concerned with any error of law or fact committed by them or any omission on their part to consider any of the matters. In this view, it would not be for us to determine the true construction of the contract and find out whether the respondents' contention is correct or not. Once the dispute is found to be within the scope of the arbitration clause, it is no part of the province of the Court to enter into the merits of the dispute."
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - B C Ray - Full Document

Partabmull Rameshwar vs Fulchand Kanahiyalal And Co. on 28 February, 1964

17. Mr. Ghosh has cited a decision of the Supreme Court, A.M. Mair and Co. v. Gordhaudas Sagarmull, . In that case, the main question was as to whether a party to the contract was acting merely as a broker or was the principal bound by the contract. A further question arose as to whether such a dispute was one that arose under the contract and, therefore, referable to arbitration. It was held that the question turned upon the true interpretation of the contract and as the parties had to take recourse to the con-tract to establish the claim, it was a dispute under or arising out of the contract and thus within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In an application for stay under Section 34, no interpretation of the court act is involved.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Badri Narayan Lall vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 November, 1962

15. It would not serve any useful purpose by referring to the several provisions of the English Acts and the decisions thereon, viz.. Bankruptcy Act, 1883 and 1914; Finance (No. 2) Act,, 1915, Income-tax Act, 1918, Rent Act, 1920 Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 and also to the provisions in our Acts, viz., the Income-tax Act, Workmen's Compensation Act, etc., for appreciation of the meaning of the phrase 'arising out of. It would not equally be useful to refer to the other English Acts, viz.. Lands Clauses Consolidation-Act, 1845; Employer's and Workmen Act, 1875-and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897; Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884; Bankruptcy Act, 1890; Midwives Act, 1902 and 1951; Electricity Supply Act, 1919, Increase of Rent and Mortgage-Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, and the decisions thereon for appreciation of the meaning of the phrase 'under' but the phrases 'under' or 'arising out of or 'consisting" or 'with regard to' or 'relating to' or 'in relation to' or 'in respect of, used in the contract or agreement in the matter of arbitration have been interpreted in several decisions of the Supreme Court. See A. M. Mair and Co. v. Gordhandass, 1950 SCR 792, corresponding to , Ruby General Insurance Co., Ltd, v. Pearey Lal, 1952 SCR 501 Corresponding to , Gaya Electric Supply Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1953 SCR 572 corresponding to , Anderson-.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - R S Bachawat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next