Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.93 seconds)

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

13.7. Furthermore, an anti-arbitration injunction ought to be granted by a court only if a clear case is made out by the plaintiff that the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal would be vexatious and/or oppressive as it is, in my opinion, incumbent upon the Court before which such an action is instituted to encourage I.A. Signature Not No. 6117-2020 Verified in CS (COMM) 248-2020 Page 32 of 49 Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:10.11.2020 15:23:51 parties to have their disputes determined by the forum chosen by them. This principle would apply with greater force where, in the Court's assessment, a trial would be necessary qua issues which have arisen between the disputants. [See: Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited vs. NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited2, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7575] 13.8. The judgements cited on behalf of the plaintiffs pertain to Part I of the 1996 Act and deal with accord and satisfaction. These judgements3 pertain to a period before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 [in short "2015 Amendment Act"] came into force on 23.10.2015 and was published in the Gazette of India on 01.01.2016.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Macquarie Sbi Infrastrucutre Pte Ltd vs Sadananda Shetty on 22 June, 2021

In response to the argument advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited v The NCC Infrastructure Holdings Ltd 2019 SCC online Delhi 7575, wherein Parameters for grant of anti-arbitration injunctions has been laid down. Hon'ble High Court has held;
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rail Land Development Authority vs Parsvnath Developers Limited & Anr. on 18 September, 2024

36. Learned senior counsel further submitted that claim of Rs. 132 crores were specifically considered and rejected in Arbitration II up to the Supreme Court and is barred by res-judicata, and therefore the same could not have been awarded in the present award. Learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned award is in conflict with the award in Arbitration II which is affirmed by the Supreme Court. Reliance has been placed upon Daryao v. State of U.P. 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21, Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat 1964 SCC OnLine SC 99, Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kaur (1969) 2 SCR 244, Hope Plantations v. Taluk Land Board (1999) 5 SCC 590, State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organisation (2006) 4 SCC 683, Asgar v. Mohan Verma (2020) 16 SCC 230, Himachal Sorang Power Ltd. v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings (2019) SCC OnLine Del 7575, Venture Global Engineering Ltd. v. Satyam Computer, (2010) 8 SCC 660 and Virgin Atlantic v. Zodiac Seats UK Ltd. (2013) 3 WLR 299.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Engineering Projects (India) Limited ... vs Msa Global Llc (Oman) on 25 July, 2025

60. At this juncture, a useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited v. NCC Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:26.07.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:00:55 36 KUMAR KAURAV Infrastructure Holdings Limited19, wherein, this Court enlisted the principles to be followed in granting an anti-arbitration injunction, the relevant excerpt of which reads as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - P K Kaurav - Full Document
1