Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Teamco Private Ltd. vs T.M.S. Mani on 18 February, 1966

Itc Classic Finance Ltd. vs Grapco Mining And Co. Ltd. And Another on 1 April, 1997

i) 'M/s. Teanco Private Ltd. v. T.M.S. Mani' . This is a Bench decision of this Court where it was held that the expression "arbitrators" in the arbitration agreement clearly expressed intention that reference would not be to a single arbitrator and as such the same was vague and uncertain and could not be made certain. This case is also an authority for the proposition that the arbitration agreement must be construed with reference to the language used therein;
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Gayatri Projects Ltd. vs State Of Orissa Through The Executive ... on 20 February, 2004

15. Despite the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Teamco Private Ltd. v. T.M.S. Mani, AIR 1967 Calcutta 168, where it has been held that use of expression 'arbitrators' clearly expresses the intention that reference will not be to a single arbitrator and thus expresses a different intention ruling out the applicability of Rule 1 of First Schedule. However, the aforesaid decision of Calcutta High Court does not apply to the instant case, as here, I am required to interpret the expression 'an Arbitrator' occurring in the said agreement subject to other stipulations in the same agreement. In the context of the agreement before me, I am required to interpret the expression 'an Arbitrator' in accordance with or in the light of other stipulations in the same agreement. It must be understood also that where a word is expressed in singular form it also includes plural. (See : Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897). That apart, a document has to be interpreted as a whole. No expression used in a document or instrument can be lifted from the context in which it occurs and the same cannot be interpreted in the vacuum without referring to other parts of the same instrument or document. The document has to be read as a whole and each expression has to be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the authors that can be gathered after reading the document/instrument as a whole. As has been referred to herein above, the words 'an Arbitrator' has to be interpreted in accordance with other terms and conditions stipulated in various paras of the same instrument. If I do not do so, it may so happen that the instrument will be rendered unworkable or some other stipulation of the agreement will be rendered unworkable or some other stipulation of the agreement will be rendered meaningless or devoid of any application. Under the Rules of interpretation of instruments/documents, it is one of the fundamental cannon of interpretation that the documents should be read harmoniously as a whole, so that there is no repugnancy or inconsistency between different parts of the same document/ instrument. The intention of the authors of such instrument/documents has to be gathered after reading it as a whole and all efforts must be made that no part of the instrument/ document is made meaningless or devoid of any application. It is true that learned counsel for the petitioner cited number of decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court to buttress his aforesaid contentions. But after going through the same and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that none of the case laws cited on behalf of the petitioner is applicable to the instant case. For the sake of bravity, I do not like to refer the same in this judgment.
Orissa High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manjit Singh Kohli vs Munni Devi on 1 July, 1996

(35) The learned senior counsel for the 7th defendant Mr. S.N. Kumar relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Keshavlal Lullubhai Patel and others vs Lalbhai Trikumlal Mills Ltd., and also the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in M/s. Teamco Private Ltd. vs T.M.S. Mani, . I don't find anything useful in those eases which would support the case of the 7th defendant. The learned senior counsel also contended that the agreement is vague and relied upon Section 93 of the Evidence Act, 1872. I find little substance in this argument.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Ramamoorthy - Full Document

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. vs Alutec Inc. on 22 March, 2002

16. Ms. Bindu Saxena, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would inter alia argue that the purported arbitration agreement being vague, as no fixed procedure having been laid down therein, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Strong reliance has been placed in this connection on Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Mehul Construction Co. ; Wellington Associates Ltd. v. Kirit Mehta ; and Teamco Private Ltd. v. T.M.S. Mani, .
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sh. Jagatjit Jaiswal And Anr. vs Karmajit Singh Jaiswal And Anr. on 14 November, 2007

62. The arbitration agreement in that case provided for reference to "arbitrators". Since the term "arbitrators" appearing in the plural form expressed a contrary intention, the court held that the reference could not have been to a sole arbitrator and the reference necessarily had to be made to a tribunal of more than one arbitrator and, since, no number was agreed to, the clause was vague and therefore void.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - V Sanghi - Full Document

M/S. Mukund Limited vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 18 August, 1998

Reliance for this purpose is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Teamco Private Ltd. v. T.M.S. Mani, . A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has observed that every agreement must be construed with reference to language used therein and if the parties have failed to express their intention of having their disputes settled by arbitration by using clear, meaningful and unambiguous language and have failed to enter into a valid arbitration agreement, the Court has no choice but to say that there is no contract and it is not open to the Court to create a contract for the parties. The action of the Arbitrator it is contended in trying to explain the clause of T.O.I. is rewriting the contract.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - F I Rebello - Full Document

M/S Aero Club Through Its Authorized ... vs V.P. Arora & Others on 3 August, 2010

Hormusji and Daruwala v. District Local Board, Karachi, AIR 1934 Sind 200; Seth Kerorimal Adwani v. Union of India,AIR 1959 Cal 430 and M/s. Teameo Pvt. Ltd. v. T.M.S. Mani, AIR 1967 Cal 168, in support of his contention. I do not, however, think it necessary to express any opinion on the question whether an arbitration agreement is of such a special nature as to require a stricter construction of its terms than any other contract for, as has been stated, the relevant clause of the agreement relied upon by the respondent Company does not amount to an arbitration agreement on any construction thereof."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next