Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Indtel Technical Services Pvt.Ltd vs W.S. Atkins Plc on 25 August, 2008

The vs Ramesh Chander And Ors on 12 April, 2011

The main contention, however, is based on paragraph 32 of the decision in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. (cited supra) as also paragraph 36 of the decision in Indtel Technical Services Private Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd. (cited supra), where reliance was placed on the decision in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. (cited supra) which is decision rendered by a Three Judge Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

M/S Dozco India P.Ltd vs M/S Doosan Infracore Co.Ltd on 8 October, 2010

The main contention, however, is based on paragraph 32 of the decision in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. (cited supra) as also paragraph 36 of the decision in Indtel Technical Services Private Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd. (cited supra), where reliance was placed on the decision in Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. & Anr. (cited supra) which is decision rendered by a Three Judge Bench.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 56 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Royal Orchid Associated Hotels Private ... vs Kesho Lal Goyal on 3 November, 2020

33. Having considered the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, the issue in the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of INDTEL Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as followed in Zhejiang Bonly Elevator Guide OMP(I)(COMM) 247/2020 Page 29 of 43 Rail Manufacture Co. Ltd. (supra) inasmuch as from the perusal of Article XXVIII of the agreement, it is clear that the petitioner has an option either to get the disputes / claims / differences adjudicated through the jurisdiction of the Court or by way of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1996. The fact that the petitioner has filed this petition, it must be held that it intends to get the disputes settled through the process of arbitration. It is also not the case of the respondent either him or the petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. I also find from sub-clause 2 of Article XXVIII, the intention of the parties is to refer the disputes to the Arbitrator with regard to any dispute concerning accounting matters and one of the claims of the petitioner is of non-payment of Management Fees, which is an accounting issue. The objection raised by Mr. Pachnanda on the maintainability of the petition is liable to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - V K Rao - Full Document

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd vs Shri Chand Construction And Apartment ... on 24 November, 2021

37. The appellant has further relied on Sundaram Finance Ltd and M.D. Frozen Foods Exports (P) Ltd. (Supra), to support his arguments. In all the cases cited by the appellant, the arbitration clause was not in dispute. However, in the present case, the challenge exists to the arbitration agreement, which is wanting in the essential element of valid arbitration agreement- "mutuality."
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

M/S. Abbas Cashew Company vs M/S. Bond Commodities on 8 July, 2010

The judgment in Infowares Arb. A. No. 7 of 2010 -28- Ltd. Equinox Corporation (2009(7) SCC 220) and the judgment in Indtel Technical Services v. W.S.Atkins Rail Ltd. (2008(10) SCC 308) also cannot have application as unlike in those cases in the present case there is agreement between the parties that both the substantive law governing the contract and the law relating to arbitration proceedings shall be the law of England. We also notice that the appellants participated in the arbitration and to a certain extent his counter claim was upheld by the arbitrators. We are therefore, not impressed by the accusations that are leveled against the arbitrators and the appellant.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Yeshwant Boolani (Dead) Through Lrs. ... vs Sunil Dhameja on 31 May, 2024

Interpreting the aforesaid clauses, the Judge designated by the learned Chief Justice of India held thus : (Indtel Technical Services case [Indtel Technical Services (P) Ltd. v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd., (2008) 10 SCC 308] , SCC p. 318, para 38) Signature Not Verified Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA Signing time: 6/10/2024 2:55:00 PM 7 ―38. Furthermore, from the wording of Clause 13.2 and Clause 13.3 I am convinced, for the purpose of this application, that the parties to the memorandum intended to have their disputes resolved by arbitration and in the facts of this case the petition has to be allowed.‖ The aforesaid passage makes it clear as crystal that emphasis has been laid on the intention of the parties to have their disputes resolved by arbitration.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next