Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1418 (2.40 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 Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs M/S Aptech Ltd. on 1 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].
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Manoj Meena vs Prabhulal on 19 March, 2025

6. If the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is taken note of then it is apparently clear that limited scrutiny is required to be done in the matter. Each and every case cannot be referred invoking Section 11(6) of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Signing time: 12-08-2025 18:18:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37470 6 AC-38-2023 Arbitration Conciliation Act. In the present case, there is a specific averment regarding settlement of a dispute by way of an arbitration but the fact remains that the non-applicant is not even in possession of the property in question. The same has already been sold out prior to invoking the said clause by the non-applicant to one Mrs. Leela Bai by registered sale deed dated 24.07.2020. The applicant has also not filed any civil suit seeking a specific performance on agreement to sale. It is the jurisdiction of the competent civil court to set aside a sale deed which is executed in favour of Mrs Leela Bai by the non-applicant. Under these circumstances, this Court refrains from entertaining this arbitration case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Mishra - Full Document

Mr. Mohd Moualana vs M/S. Brightway Communications on 12 August, 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] .
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next