Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 130 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing S.N.Prasad,M/S Hitek ... vs M/S Monnet Finance Ltd.& Ors on 22 October, 2010

M/S. Abhibus Services India Pvt. ... vs Pallavan Transport Consultancies ... on 5 January, 2021

The decision turns upon a construction of the arbitration agreement as an agreement which binds parties to it. The decision in Prasad [S.N. Prasad v. Monnet Finance Ltd., (2011) 1 SCC 320 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 141] evidently involved a guarantee, where the guarantor who was sought to be impleaded as a party to the arbitral proceeding was not a party to the loan agreement between the lender and borrower. The loan agreement between the lender and borrower contained an arbitration agreement. The guarantor was not a party to that agreement.
Madras High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 2 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Fernas Construction Co.Inc vs Ongc Petro Additions Ltd. on 25 April, 2019

18. However, the Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgment of Cheran Properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited (supra) has observed that the legal position as stated by the Supreme Court in S.N.Prasad, Hitek Industries (Bihar) Limited vs. Monnet Finance Limited and Others (supra)has been modified in view of the judgment of the Three Judge Bench in Chloro Controls India Private Limited vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.(supra). Hence, in stated circumstances a guarantor who may not be a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement may be made bound by the arbitration agreement if the circumstances as noted above exist.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

This Application Has Been Filed To ... vs Mahesh S.Mehta And Another (2010(1) ...

"22.06 The above judgment of the Madras High Court i Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others was also relied on to show that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Holdings pvt. Ltd.'s case (AIR 2003 SC 2252) has been considered by the Madras high Court and that as long as there is relief granted against third parties, the jurisdiction of the tribunal stands ousted. On the contrary the decision only lays down the proposition that as long as no relief is granted against the third parties, the tribunal's jurisdiction would not be ousted; and that if any relief is sought against third parties, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction. However, we have already clarified that no relief is granted against any third party who is not before this Tribunal and that question does not arise at all in this case."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Arvind Jariwala vs Umang Jatin Gandhi on 6 May, 2022

5.7 The position of law that the proceedings under the Arbitration Act which would include the proceedings under Page 9 of 15 Downloaded on : Sat May 07 20:46:28 IST 2022 C/SCA/16131/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2022 section 9 proceedings are confined between the parties to the arbitration agreement stand buttressed also by decision of the Supreme Court in the context of section 11 (6) of the Act. It was held in S. N. Prasad, Hitek Industries (Bihar) Limited vs. Monnet Finance Limited and Others [(2011) 1 SCC 320] in the context of section 7 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, that a guarantor cannot be made a party to a reference to arbitration and subjected to arbitration award, who was not party to loan agreement contained in the arbitration clause. In that case, there was arbitration agreement between the lender, borrower and one of the guarantors and it was held that it could not be deemed or construed to be arbitration agreement in respect of another guarantor in a party to arbitration agreement. In the proceedings of section 11, a person who is not a party to the agreement, has no association in eye of law. On the same footing, a third party cannot be a party in the proceedings under section 9 of the Act for interim measures wherein by very nature of the proceedings, third party cannot be said to have a legal participatory right.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

C/Lpa/462/2017 Cav Judgment vs Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation ... on 18 August, 2017

In the above case by referring to Sections  7,   11   and   34     of   the   Arbitration   and  Conciliation   Act,   1996   and   arbitration  agreement   in   which   guarantor   of   loan   was  not   a  party   to   loan   agreements   containing  arbitration   clause,   it   was   held   that  guarantor   cannot   be   made   party   to   a  Page 34 of 40 HC-NIC Page 34 of 40 Created On Tue Aug 22 08:03:57 IST 2017 C/LPA/462/2017 CAV JUDGMENT reference   to   arbitration   and   subjected   to  arbitration award in dispute for repayment  of such loan.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Farmers Cooperative Group Housing ... vs M/S Budhiraja Electricals ... on 5 April, 2021

36. Now, the next contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner was as regards the role of architect, M/s Garg & Associates, Ld. Arbitrator rightly noted that only parties to arbitration agreement could be referred to arbitration. After quoting the law laid down in S.N. Prasad Vs. Monnet Finance Ltd. & Ors., (2011) 1 SC 320, came to the conclusion in para 28 that there was no question of impleading Architect in the present arbitration proceedings and correctly rejected the contention of the petitioner herein. As regards, delay on the part of petitioner in getting the civil work completed has been dealt in by the Ld. Arbitrator in para 68 of the award. Ld. Arbitrator observed that petitioner herein failed to prove the delay was due to breach of the claimant alone and neither party had been able to conclusively prove that the delay was caused by breaches of the others. So no esclation payment was allowed to the claimant in the light of its inability to prove that delay in execution of the work was due to the breaches on the part of the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.Madhusudhan Rao vs Lt.Col.Ravi Manan, And Another on 12 March, 2015

22. The principle laid down by the Apex Court is of no assistance regarding interpretation of clause relating to arbitration in the agreement. However, in para No.28 of the same judgment the Apex Court further observed that what is relevant for appointment of arbitrator is existence of arbitration agreement and not the defence on merits. In any view of the matter, the principle laid down by the Apex Court is of no avail to the revision petitioner.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - R Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next