Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.23 seconds)
Documents citing Wapcos Ltd. vs Salma Dam Joint Venture on 14 November, 2019

M/S Devi Constructions vs M/S Fowler Westrup (India) P Ltd on 21 February, 2022

So, the above decision is in the line of one cited in the case of Wapcos Limited Vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture and another. Ofcourse, the above decision also deals with that when the accord and satisfaction is obtained by coercion and duress, then, the aggrieved can invoke arbitration clause irrespective of the fact that there is an amended agreement, etc., This decision is squarely helps the defendant rather the plaintiff.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

South India Biblical Seminary vs Indraprastha Shelters Pvt Ltd on 28 March, 2022

17. Sri. Navkesh Batra, the learned counsel for the first respondent, argues for dismissal of the petition on multiple counts, and in support of each of the counts, he has relied upon certain decisions. Sri. Navkesh Batra's contentions are: [a] that the 21 dispute is ex-facie a dispute between trustees over a trust property and therefore, there can't be arbitration3, [b] the petitioner and the second respondent have assigned their rights in the subject apartments for valuable consideration in favour of third parties and such third parties have stepped into the shoes of the petitioner/the second respondent and as such, there is no cause for the petitioner or the second respondent4, [c] the petitioner's claim in any event is time barred5, and [d] the arbitration clause [clause 30] does not mandatorily contemplate arbitration and it is only optional and even otherwise, the arbitration clause does not provide for resolution of a dispute inter se the 3 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation and other matters reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1 - paragraphs 28-31 4 The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WAPCOS Limited v. Salma Dam Joint Venture and another reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court cases 169. 5 The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in BSNL and another v. M/s Nortel Networks reported in (2021) SCC online 207 22 petitioner and the second respondent6. Sri. Navkesh Batra, relying upon these circumstances, contends that the petitioner's claim for appointment of a sole arbitrator is manifestly deadwood and hence, the petition must be rejected.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs M/S. B.M.S. Associates on 18 April, 2022

8. It is also submitted that in the case of Wapcos Ltd. Vs. Salma Dam Joint Venture & Another [S.L.P(C) No. 7979 of 2019], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the parties can amend the original contract and may give up their claims under the subsisting agreement. Where the parties consciously and with full understanding executes Amendment of Agreement (AoA) whereby the contractor gives all his claims and consents to the new arrangement specified in AoA including that there will be no arbitration for the settlement of any claims by the contractor in future, then it is not open to the contractor to take recourse to arbitration process or to resurrect the claim which has been resolved in terms with the amended agreement. It has further been held that the Court cannot create a contract for the parties or improve the terms of the contract only because it is more beneficial for the parties.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R Shankar - Full Document

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 29 September, 2023

26.On the other hand, in relation to general commercial disputes, the Supreme Court in WAPCOS Limited v Salma Dam Joint Venture reported in 2020 (3) SCC 169, adjudicated an appeal whereby the High Court had, in exercise of its powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, appointed a sole arbitrator. On the question of whether an arbitration agreement subsists between the parties after amending the original agreement, it was held that in a commercial setting, parties often enter into a settlement and, in such cases, cannot be later allowed to take a plea of coercion or duress. Once the disputes are settled and the parties are satisfied, the matter is closed for all purposes; therefore, the arbitration petition was held to be not maintainable. But insurance disputes cannot be equated to general commercial disputes and it is an exception to the general rule that once https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/39 Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) Nos.231 and 232 of 2023 parties have arrived at a settlement with regard to a general commercial dispute, they cannot go back on the settlement and re-agitate the claim once again. In insurance disputes, the insurer's bargaining power to compel the insured to accept a lesser sum towards settlement of the insurance claim though the insured may be entitled for a much higher sum as per the policy is highly probable. Therefore, there is a possibility that by coercion and duress, the insurer may have made the insured to sign the discharge voucher accepting a lesser sum than what they are legally entitled as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Whether the petitioner had signed the discharged voucher, voluntarily or under duress, cannot be adjudicated by this Court while deciding an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the said issue can only be adjudicated by the arbitrator.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Zhuhai Hansen Technology Co Ltd vs Aksh Optifibre Limited And Ors on 9 April, 2025

In light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, and upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it emerges that MOM executed between the parties on 25 th June 2018, for the purpose of short closing the contracts, is not a continuation of the Signature Not Verified I.A. 36412/2024 in CS(COMM) 628/2022 Page 29 of 33 Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Date:09.04.2025 18:49:55 earlier agreements dated 17th January 2017, and 5th April 2017. Rather, it constitutes an independent and fresh agreement. Consequently, the MOM, being a subsequent agreement will supersede the earlier contracts and will render the earlier contracts along with the arbitration clauses contained therein, ineffective and inoperative.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next