Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.94 seconds)
Documents citing Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd vs Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 21 January, 2020

Instakart Services Private Limited vs Megastone Logiparks Pvt. Ltd on 13 October, 2023

21. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court and Delhi High Court as noted above to submit that reference to the decision of the Apex Court in BGS SGS Soma JV versus NPHC Ltd. (supra) and Delhi High Court in the case of Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. versus Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another (supra), to assert that Page 23 of 54 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 13 20:52:55 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/ARBI.P/159/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2023 undefined place of arbitration, the venue, is really the seat of arbitration is misplaced. The submission is that these judgments are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case as a result of misreading of the decision of the Apex Court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Kush Raj Bhatia vs M/S Dlf Power And Services Limited on 6 December, 2022

32. It would be significant to observations made in Jain Studios Ltd. (supra) that once a case has been decided on merits, the applicant on the ground of review cannot be permitted to argue the main matter afresh. Once the prayer has been refused, no review petition would lie which would amount to re-hearing of the original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate powers which enable a superior Court to correct all errors committed by the subordinate court. There cannot be any re-hearing of the original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen the concluded adjudication. The power of review should be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. It was further observed that when a prayer to appoint an Arbitrator has been heard and rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by Signature Not Verified ARB.P. 869/2022 Page 13 of 14 Digitally Signed By:PRIYANKA ANEJA Signing Date:06.12.2022 17:43:37 2022/DHC/005349 an indirect method, by filing a review petition. Such a petition is in the name of second innings which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Arun Mehrotra vs Kishan Lal on 27 March, 2023

12.1 In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgments in Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd vs Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another (Supra), Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs NHPC Limited and Another (Supra) and BBR (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (Supra), it is considered that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute. Accordingly, the petition under Section 34 of the Act is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S/O Sh. Rishal Singh vs Smt. Vagisha Suneja on 22 February, 2023

12.1 In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgments in Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd vs Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another (Supra), Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs NHPC Limited and Another (Supra) and BBR CS (Comm) no.18/2022 Sh. Krishan Kumar Mann vs Smt. Vagisha Suneja Page 32 of 33 (India) Private Limited vs S.P. Singla Constructions Private Limited (Supra), it is considered that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute. Accordingly, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rajkumar vs Hinduja Housing Finance Limited on 22 April, 2022

In view of decisions in Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd. & Another (supra) and Cinepolis India Private Ltd. vs Celebration City Projects Limited & Another (supra) this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute. The petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sohan Pal Sharma vs M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd on 13 December, 2021

In view of decisions in Hindustan Construction Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd. & Another (supra) and Cinepolis India Private Ltd. vs Celebration City Projects Limited & Another (supra) this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present dispute. The petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yassh Deep Builders Llp vs Sushil Kumar Singh on 1 March, 2024

40. Similar view if expressed in Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. v. Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. 2020 SCC Online Del 301wherein the court referring to the clauses of the agreement noted that parties by agreement had conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the subject matter of the agreement on the courts in Ghaziabad, while the place of the arbitration was New Delhi. Learned judge held that while it was true that the arbitration clause did not specifically use the word "seat" but it was no longer res integra that the term "place" would be the "juridical seat" for the purpose of Section 2(2) of the Act and the word "place" was equivalent to "venue".
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Sachdeva - Full Document

M/S Parwani Enterprises vs T Bhimjyani Warehousing Cold Chain Pvt. ... on 28 October, 2024

"31. What emerges therefore by reading of the various judgments referred to above is that it is really the seat of arbitration which is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Where there are no contrary provisions in the agreement, the place would be the juridical seat which would Signature Not Verified ARB.P. 1147//2024 Page 8 of 13 Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:10.11.2024 02:55:41 determine the territorial jurisdiction of a Court. Where the words in the arbitration clause are neither seat nor place and the arbitration clause only refers to words such as 'venue' or "held in" the intent of the parties would have to be seen from the agreement. If the parties intend that the arbitration proceedings are to be held as a whole at that particular venue then the venue also becomes a juridical seat. It is also clear from the now well settled law that it is the seat or the juridical seat which will be the guiding factor for a Court to determine its jurisdiction while examining a petition under Section 11 of the Act."
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document
1   2 Next