Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (5.93 seconds)
Documents citing Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 28 February, 2019

M/S Vatika One India Next Private ... vs Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited on 19 December, 2022

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 359/2022 and other connected matters Page 8 of 67 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:19.12.2022 16:52:50 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005642 exclude arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil court or specifying the civil court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

M/S S. S. Con - Build Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority Through ... on 9 May, 2023

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to exclude arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil court or specifying the civil court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 May, 2023

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to exclude arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil court or specifying the civil court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Gtpl Hathway Ltd. vs Strategic Markering Pvt.Ltd. on 20 April, 2020

iii) In the decision in case of Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (supra) relied by the petitioner, the Apex Court considered the issue of arbitrability with regard to tenancy agreement in view of specific provisions of Tenancy Act and Transfer of Property Act. The issue before the Apex Court was whether the Act, 1996 stands excluded. The Apex Court was thus considering the judgment of the High Court appointing an arbitrator after rejecting the objection of arbitrability of the disputes between the parties. In the aforesaid decision, the issue as to whether the writ is maintainable against the order of the Tribunal deciding the issue of arbitrability of the agreement was not at large before the Apex Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 139 - Cited by 10 - B D Karia - Full Document

Macquarie Sbi Infrastrucutre Pte Ltd vs Sadananda Shetty on 22 June, 2021

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of MP, (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the Order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to exclude Arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the Court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil Court or specifying the civil Court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020

This judgment decides the reference to three Judges made vide order dated 28th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 2402 of 2019 titled Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation,1 as it doubts the legal ratio expressed in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia2 that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2020.12.14 19:38:59 IST Reason: 1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 358 2 (2017) 10 SCC 706 1 Act, 1882, are not arbitrable as this would be contrary to public policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 615 - S Khanna - Full Document

Royal Orchid Hotels Limited vs Rock Realty Private Limited on 13 October, 2020

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that by virtue of Section 11(6-A) of the Act as well as the decisions of the Apex Court in Uttarakhand's case and Mayavati Trading's case (supra), the scope of adjudication for this Court in the present petition is restricted / confined / limited to examining whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties and all and every other issue/contention of any of the parties will have to necessarily be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Galaxy Infra And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on 8 March, 2021

“1. This judgment decides the reference to three Judges made vide order dated 28-2-2019 in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406, as it doubts the legal ratio expressed in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706 that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, are not arbitrable as this would be contrary to public policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 36 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next