Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Cochin Refineries Ltd. vs C.S. Company, Engineering ... on 24 July, 1987

Indian Telephone Industry Ltd. vs Madan Lal on 11 November, 2002

21. When contract subsists, though performance was put to end to by completion, repudiation, frustration, breach or otherwise, disputes arising out of the obligation under the contract will have to be set out. For that purpose, the only course will be submission to the decision of the person or persons whom they have chosen by the contract and in that eventuality only such persons shall have jurisdiction in such matters. By putting an end to performance alone, the contract shall not come to an end. It will survive till the obligations are settled and the parties are relieved out of the contract. Even after completion of work, the question may arise whether contract still subsists or stood perished and as to whether the arbitration clause still survives. Such issues are to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case as no strait-jacket formula can be laid down which may have universal application. Even in a case, a party issues certificate that it has received the amount in full and final settlement and nothing survives, still question may remain open regarding the genuineness of such document, conditions under which certificate had been issued - D&C Builders Ltd. v. Rees[1996]2 QB617; and Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. C.S. Co., Engg. Contractors AIR 1989 Ker. 72.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. Ajit Mehta And Associates, Pune And ... on 9 August, 1989

In Cochin Refineries Ltd. v. C. S. Company, Engineering Contractors, Kottayam, after completion of work as per the final measurement, amounts were received by the contractor in full and final settlement of all the claims, admitting that no further claims were due. After the liability period was over, at the instance of the contractor, security and retention amounts were also released. Two years thereafter the contractor raised a claim making mention of some earlier claims and the contractor appointed his arbitrator and called upon the company to appoint their arbitrator. The company took the stand that there was no arbitrable dispute and hence they did not appoint the arbitrator. When the arbitrator appointed by the contractor attempted to proceed as sole arbitrator the company filed the petition under S. 33 of the Act for a finding that the arbitration agreement was not in existence and for a declaration that the action taken by the contractor was illegal and void. It was held that whether there was full and final settlement or not was itself a dispute arising out of the contract and under the arbitration clause the arbitrator alone had to decide it. It was further held that if the dispute is that on account of accord and satisfaction the contract it self did not subsist. That is not a matter for arbitration because if the contract did not subsist there was no question of arbitration since the arbitration clause also would perish. However a repudiation by one party that the contract is discharged alone will not terminate the contract when the other party says that the obligations are due. That itself is a dispute arising out of or in connection with the contract.
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Aby Abraham Mathew vs Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. on 10 December, 2001

24. Hence the judgment passed by the Court in the above M.F.As reversing the judgment passed by the trial court and remanding the same to the trial court for disposal, is manifestly erroneous and in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the behalf. Hence there is error apparent on the face of the record in the common judgment passed by this Court in the above M.F.A. which is liable to be reviewed. Therefore, the above review petitions are allowed. The common judgment passed by this Court dated 13.8.2001 in the above M.F.As., are reviewed. The judgments passed by the lower court are confirmed and the appeals are dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs P.K. Ramaiah And Company, Civil ... on 31 October, 1991

"When one party says that there was full and final settlement and the opposite party says that it was not voluntary but under compelling circumstances and he has got claims, that is also a matter that could be decided only by the arbitrator." (vide para 15) This judgment is quite in accordance with the judgment of Justice Sawanth, as he then was, referred to above. As already discussed above there is no whisper in the petitions that the amount was received by the 1st respondent contractor in full and final settlement either under coercion, fraud or misrepresentation or even by mistake and in the absence of any such contention the 1st respondent contractor is not entitled to state that the arbitration clause still survives. Thus, this decision is not helpful to the contractor. This decision also takes the same view as was taken by Justice Sawanth, (as he then was) in the Bombay decision referred to above. In view of the above decisions, I am of the clear opinion that there was nothing to be arbitrated upon between the parties as the amount was received by the 1st respondent contractor in full and final settlement of the claim without any protest or even without any allegation that the said payment was received under coercion, mistake, misrepresentation, without prejudice or under protest. Hence I find that there is nothing to be arbitrable under the agreement Accordingly I hold under this point.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1