Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Kishorilal Gupta & Bros. on 11 February, 1953

Kcm Petrotech vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 5 April, 2021

L. The Minutes of Meeting (MoM) dated 22/06/2011 does not contain any arbitration clause and the respondent, vide letter dated 26/08/2015, invoked the arbitration clause of already expired agreement. As per Section 7 of the Act, it is requisite that an arbitration clause should be there in writing. In the present case, Minutes of Meeting (MoM) dated 22/06/2011 amended only the royalty rates of the erstwhile Agreement, thus, it should have contained all the terms and conditions as in Agreement. In absence of arbitration clause contained in the aforesaid Minutes of Meeting, invocation of arbitration by the respondent of an ARBTN No. 5300/2018 KCM Petrotech vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Page 11 of 43 expired Agreement dated 08/07/2005 was bad in law. M. In the light of cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e., (i)Young Achievers vs IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd and (ii) Union of India (UOI) vs Kishorilal Gupta & Ors, the Minutes of Meeting, aforesaid, does not contain an arbitration clause and it can also not be read as an arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the Act and the arbitration clause mentioned in Clause (iii) of the Agreement ceased to exist as the Agreement expired on 07/07/2011.
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co. ... vs Motilal Dhariwal S/O Dulichand on 18 April, 1966

This appeal was taken to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1953 Cal. 642. Their Lordships confirmed the view of the Calcutta High Court and laid down: "(1) An arbitration clause is a collateral term of a contract as distinguished from its substantive terms; but none the less it is an integral part of it; (2) however comprehensive the terms of an arbitration clause may be, the existence of the contract is a necessary condition for its operation, it perishes with the contract; (3) the contract may be non est in the sense that it never came legally into existence or it was void ab initio; (4) though the contract was validly executed, the parties may put an end to it as if it had never existed and substitute a new contract for it solely governing their rights and liabilities thereunder; (5) in the former case, if the original contract has no legal existence, the arbitration clause also cannot operate, for along with the original contract, it is also void; in the latter case, as the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one, the arbitration clause of the original contract perishes with it; and (6) between the two fall many categories of disputes in connection with a contract, such as the question of repudiation, frustration, breach etc. In those cases it is the performance of the contract that has come to an end, but the contract is still in existence for certain purposes in respect of disputes arising under it or in connection with it. As the contract subsists for certain purposes the arbitration clause operates in respect of these purposes."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kartar Singh vs Mehr Singh And Ors. on 19 October, 1956

The question whether the parties did in fact enter into a new agreement in substitution of the original agreement or whether the terms of the new agreement have been performed as satisfaction must be determined by the Court before it proceeds to enforce the arbitration clause. If accord and satisfaction is by substituted agreement it is a question of construction of that agreement Whether it also extinguishes all pre-existing rights and obligations and totally discharges the original contract Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros., AIR 1953 Cal 642 (A).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1