Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 176 (1.81 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Magma Leasing & Fin. Ltd. & Anr vs Potluri Madhavilata & Anr on 18 September, 2009

Ranjit Kumar Bose vs Anannya Chowdhury on 7 March, 2014

In Branch Manager, Magma Leasing & Finance Limited & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilata & Anr. (supra), Magma Leasing Limited Public United Company (for short ’Magma’) and Smt. Potluri Madhavilata (for short ’hirer’) entered into an agreement of hire-purchase for the purchase of a motor vehicle whereunder the hirer was required to pay hire- purchase price in 46 instalments. When the instalments were not paid, Magma seized the vehicle and sent a notice to the hirer saying that the hire-purchase agreement has been terminated. The hirer then filed a suit against Magma in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge for recovery of possession of the vehicle and for restraining Magma from transferring the vehicle. Magma filed a petition before the Civil Judge under Section 8 of the 1996 Act praying that the dispute raised in the suit be referred to an arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of the Hire-Purchase Agreement, which contained the arbitration agreement. This Court reiterated that Section 8 is in the form of legislative command to the court and once the prerequisite conditions are satisfied, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration. In this case again, there was no statutory bar to arbitration like Section 6 of the Tenancy Act providing that the dispute can only be decided by a Civil Judge.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Ranjit Kumar Bose & Anr vs Anannya Chowdhury & Anr on 7 March, 2014

In Branch Manager, Magma Leasing & Finance Limited & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilata & Anr. (supra), Magma Leasing Limited Public United Company (for short ‘Magma’) and Smt. Potluri Madhavilata (for short ‘hirer’) entered into an agreement of hire-purchase for the purchase of a motor vehicle whereunder the hirer was required to pay hire- purchase price in 46 instalments. When the instalments were not paid, Magma seized the vehicle and sent a notice to the hirer saying that the hire-purchase agreement has been terminated. The hirer then filed a suit against Magma in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge for recovery of possession of the vehicle and for restraining Magma from transferring the vehicle. Magma filed a petition before the Civil Judge under Section 8 of the 1996 Act praying that the dispute raised in the suit be referred to an arbitrator in terms of Clause 22 of the Hire-Purchase Agreement, which contained the arbitration agreement. This Court reiterated that Section 8 is in the form of legislative command to the court and once the prerequisite conditions are satisfied, the Court must refer the parties to arbitration. In this case again, there was no statutory bar to arbitration like Section 6 of the Tenancy Act providing that the dispute can only be decided by a Civil Judge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 23 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Sh.Sukhwinder Singh And Another vs Smt.Kusum Sharma on 2 November, 2015

In Branch Manager, M/s Magma Leasing & Finance Ltd., & Anr. versus Potluri Madhavilata & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 488, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that arbitration clause is a collateral term in the contract which relates to resolution of disputes, and not performance. Therefore, even if the performance of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:16:52 :::HCHP 5 contract comes to an end on account of repudiation, frustration or breach of contract, the arbitration agreement would survive for the .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S Young Achievers vs Ims Learning Resources Pvt.Ltd on 22 August, 2013

c) Whether the Hon’ble High Court is correct in holding that the law settled by this Hon’ble Court in The Branch Manager, M/s Magma Leasing & Finance Limited and another v. Potluri Madhavilata and another (2009) 10 SCC 103 and National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. V. Gains Trading Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 692 is applicable in case of unilateral termination of agreement by one of the parties and not in mutual termination for accord and satisfaction of the earlier contract?”
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Mrs. Raj Rani vs Dlf Homes Panchkula Private Limited on 22 March, 2016

In the case of  Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with various judgments including M/s S.B.P. and Co.'s case (supra) and Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another (supra) (the one reliance on which has been placed by the opposite parties in present case also)  observed that the same (judgments) have no bearing on the issue, as to whether in the face of an Arbitration Clause, Jurisdiction  can be exercised by a Consumer Fora or not. It was further observed that the observation made in that judgment that Section 8 of the 1996 Act, is mandatory, cannot lead to an inference that the Consumer Fora is bound to refer to the Arbitral Tribunal. In that judgment, the Supreme Court had not interpreted the provisions of 1996 Act in the light of the provisions contained in 1986 Act. It was further observed that the observation made in that judgment that Section 8 of the 1996 Act is mandatory, cannot lead to an inference that the Consumer  Fora is bound to make a reference to the Arbitral Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court, also observed as under:-
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 22 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next