Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 687 (4.26 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Duro Felguera S.A vs M/S. Gangavaram Port Limited on 10 October, 2017

Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs Derco Foods on 9 November, 2020

(2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 785] , as Section 11(6-A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment in Duro Felguera, SA [Duro Felguera, SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764] -- see paras 48 & 59 [Ed.: The said paras 48 & 59 of Duro Felguera, SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764, for ready reference, read as follows:"48.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

54. The same words "notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court" find place in sub-section (6-A) of Section 11 and the Supreme Court and High Court are confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. This Court had occasion to consider the amendment made in Section 11(6-A) in Duro Felguera SA [Duro Felguera SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764] . Kurian Joseph, J. in his concurring opinion in para 48 has laid down the following:
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Sanjiv Prakash vs Seema Kukreja on 6 April, 2021

10. The impugned judgment was wholly incorrect in deciding that the plea of doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz and reliance on Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act, as expounded in Duro Felguera (supra) and Mayavati Trading (supra) were not applicable to the case in hand. Apart from going into a detailed consideration of the MoU and the SHA, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the learned Single Judge, while considering clause 28 of the SHA to arrive at the finding that any kind of agreement as detailed in clause 28.2 between the parties shall stand 42 superseded, does not even refer to clause 28.1. No consideration has been given to the separate and distinct subject matter of the MoU and the SHA.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 21 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Spml Infra Ltd vs Ntpc Limited on 8 April, 2021

10. The impugned judgment was wholly incorrect in deciding that the plea of doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz and reliance on Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act, as expounded in Duro Felguera (supra) and Mayavati Trading (supra) were not applicable to the case in hand. Apart from going into a detailed consideration of the MoU and the SHA, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the learned Single Judge, while considering clause 28 of the SHA to arrive at the finding that any kind of agreement as detailed in clause 28.2 between the parties shall stand superseded, does not even refer to clause 28.1. No consideration has been given to the separate and distinct subject matter of the MoU and the SHA.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 25 April, 2023

This being the position, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgment as Section 11(6A) is confined to the 15 examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment Duro Felguera, S.A. (supra) – see paras 48 & 59.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 229 - Cited by 104 - K Joseph - Full Document

Metcon India Realty And Infrastructure ... vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 2 February, 2023

46. The upshot of the judgment in Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] is affirmation of the position of law expounded in Duro Felguera [Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764] and Mayavati Trading [Mayavati Trading (P) Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman, (2019) 8 SCC 714 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 441] , which continue to hold the field.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next