Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Virgo Softech Ltd. vs National Institute Of Electronics And ... on 25 March, 2019

V.E. Commercial Vehicles Ltd. Thr. J.S. ... vs Grand Motors Sales And Services ... on 13 May, 2020

18/ Similar issue also came up before the Delhi High Court in the case of Virgo Softech Ltd. Vs. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology 2018 SCC Online Delhi 12723 wherein the Arbitration clause provided that the arbitration proceedings shall be held in New Delhi and it also contain a Clause that the Court in Aurangabad only shall 12 AC No.16/19 have exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute arising there from. The Clause relating to holding the proceedings in New Delhi is held to be a Clause providing for Venue of arbitration at New Delhi and it has been held that the Court at Aurangabad were conferred exclusive jurisdiction. Against this judgment of the Delhi High Court SLP(Civil) No.5063-5064/19 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25/3/2019.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - P Shrivastava - Full Document

M/S Height Insurance Services Limited vs Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company ... on 20 April, 2023

37. Again, in Virgo Softech Ltd (supra), the Delhi High Court had the option between arbitration proceedings being held at New Delhi and courts in Aurangabad (MS) having exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain any dispute arising therefrom. The court proceeded on such premise and held that, since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred in the courts of Aurangabad and New Delhi was merely the place/venue, the High Court at Delhi would not have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Lite Bite Foods Private Limited vs Airports Authority Of India on 30 April, 2026

15. Thus, it was submitted that, the parties consented that courts at Bhubaneswar, Orissa would have jurisdiction and the overall governing jurisdiction would override sub-Article 22.2.1. Kolkata was merely the place of the meetings and not the seat. The overall jurisdiction of the courts at Bhubaneswar under Sub-Article 25.1, would take precedence over Sub-Article 22.2.1. He further relied on the decision of Virgo Softech Ltd. vs National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology reported in 2018 SCC Online Del 12723, on the point that, there was a difference between seat and venue of arbitration. In the absence of an express agreement with regard to the seat, the venue of arbitration under Sub-Article 22.2.1 could not be treated as a seat, especially because the parties agreed that the courts at Bhubaneswar would have exclusive jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document
1