Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing India Cements Capital Finance Ltd. vs Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd. And Ors. on 24 December, 1999

Das Lagerwey Wind Turbines Limited vs Cynosure Investments Private Limited on 17 December, 2002

Learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on India Cements Capital Finance Ltd. v. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd.- 2000 (II) CTC 267 to show that a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject matter of an agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.
Company Law Board Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.Nagarajan vs Chanchal Kanwar on 27 November, 2012

In support of this contention, that it is mandatory to refer the matter for arbitration, learned counsel for the applicants / defendants relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Lakshmi Enterprises vs. R.Ramakrishnan, 2007 (2) CTC 818, judgments of this Court in India Cements Capital Finance Ltd. vs. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd., 2000 (II) CTC 267, and M/s.Sugal & Damani Finlease Ltd. vs. P.Subramania Reddy, 2000 (III) CTC 74.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Mr.R.Haribabu vs G.Poonam Chand on 26 November, 2012

In support of this contention, that it is mandatory to refer the matter for arbitration, learned counsel for the applicants / defendants relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Lakshmi Enterprises vs. R.Ramakrishnan, 2007 (2) CTC 818, judgments of this Court in India Cements Capital Finance Ltd. vs. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd., 2000 (II) CTC 267, and M/s.Sugal & Damani Finlease Ltd. vs. P.Subramania Reddy, 2000 (III) CTC 74.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Diamond Apartments Pvt. Ltd vs Abanar Marketing Ltd on 3 June, 2015

On being confronted with the pleadings filed before the Arbitrator questioning the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and on being asked to explain whether by reason of such plea being raised before the Arbitrator, is it still open for the defendant to argue for dismissal of the suit, it is argued that there cannot be any estoppel against statute inasmuch as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being a complete code in itself, the remedies provided under the said Act are required to be pursued. Mr. Mitra has referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in India Cements Capital Finance Limited Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd. & Others reported at [2000] 102 Company Cases 523 (Mad.) and submitted that mere denial of the existence of the arbitration agreement by the defendant does not by itself confer a power on the court to proceed with the suit when the issue required to be decided is as to whether the disputes are arbitrable. The issue necessarily has to be decided in a proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Mr. Mitra has also relied 7 upon the following cases for the proposition that the issue of estoppel is a mixed question of law and fact and having regard to the fact that the defendant did not derive any benefit out of the said objection it cannot preclude the defendant from filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the parties to arbitration:
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - S Sen - Full Document
1