Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Roshan Lal Gupta vs Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr on 11 February, 2009

Dholi Spintex Private Limited vs Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. on 24 November, 2020

In the impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has applied the Division Bench Judgment in Spentex as also the Single Judge decision in Roshan Lal Gupta v. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (157) DLT 712. The first feature to be noted is that Roshan Lal deals with a domestic arbitration and, therefore, Section 45 of the A & C Act was not in contemplation. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, concluded that the word „party‟ in Section 8 of the A & C Act refers to a party to the suit in contradistinction to a party to the arbitration agreement. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned Judgment, has dismissed the applications seeking interim relief but inexplicably has kept the Suit alive for further consideration. The learned Single Judge was statutorily bound to return a finding with regard to whether or not the action or suit was the subject, matter of an arbitration agreement. In the facts of the case before us, since we are dealing with an international commercial arbitration, Section 45 of the A & C CS(COMM) 286/2020 Page 58 of 60 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:24.11.2020 12:04:34 Act comes into play. After considering all the complexities in the case, one of us had concluded in Bharti that a formal application under Section 45 of the A & C Act was not necessary, since it is incumbent for a Court seised of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have made an arbitration agreement as envisaged in Section 44, to refer the parties to arbitration except if the Court finds that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative and incapable of being performed. The dismissal of the Suit or the rejection of the application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has the effect of referring the parties to arbitration. By sagaciously not making a statement under Section 8 of the A & C Act, the Defendant has achieved indirectly what he could not have achieved directly, namely, making it inevitable for the Plaintiff to join arbitral proceedings without any consideration or adjudication of its plea that no arbitration agreement exists between the parties. It is for this reason that it seems to us essential that the Court should have proceeded under Section 8 or Section 45 of the A & C Act, as the case may be and with a view to return a finding on the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. If the prima facie finding is in favour of the existence of an arbitration agreement, the Court would rightly leave it to the Arbitral Tribunal to go into and determine the details and the minute objections raised by the Plaintiff. The Court ought not to skirt this issue, as it would tantamount to running counter to the decisions of the Supreme Court in I vaerner, SBP and Sukanya."
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - M Gupta - Full Document

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited And Anr vs Sri Ram Construction on 2 February, 2023

The decision of the arbitral tribunal to enunciate its view concerning the jurisdictional issue along with its view on the merits of the matter in the final award aligns with Indian public policy as reflected in Maharshi Dayanand University v. Anand Coop. L/C Society Ltd.5, Shakti Bhog Foods Limited v. Kola Shipping Limited6 and Roshan Lal Gupta v. Shri. Parasram Holding Pvt. Ltd.7.
Orissa High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S K Panigrahi - Full Document

Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs Singapore International Arbitration ... on 4 June, 2010

(i) The suit is barred by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 („the Act‟ for short). Defendant no. 2 has contended that the plaintiff has sought to challenge the arbitration clause in the sales contract and not the entire contract and a CS (OS) No. 1392/2009 Page 4 of 25 declaration to the effect that the arbitration clause in an agreement is null and void cannot be challenged by way of a civil suit as the Civil Court‟s jurisdiction is very limited as laid out in Section 5 of the Act. While arguing that the limited scope for action under Section 5 of the Act does not allow this Court to interfere in the present matter, learned counsel for the defendants referred to the judgment titled Roshan Lal Gupta Vs. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 15 - M Singh - Full Document

Ultra Home Constructions (P) Ltd. vs Choice Hotels International Inc. & Ors. on 13 January, 2012

Defendant no. 2 has contended that the plaintiff has sought to challenge the arbitration clause in the sales contract and not the entire contract and a declaration to the effect that the arbitration clause in an agreement is null and void cannot be challenged by way of a civil suit as the Civil Court‟s jurisdiction is very limited as laid CS (OS) No.2589/2010 Page 29 of 36 out in Section 5 of the Act. While arguing that the limited scope for action under Section 5 of the Act does not allow this Court to interfere in the present matter, learned counsel for the defendants referred to the judgment titled Roshan Lal Gupta Vs. Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported as 157 (2009) DLT 712 which can be read as under :
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - M Singh - Full Document

United Spirits Ltd vs M/S Stitch Craft (India) on 8 November, 2013

9. Considering the mandate given by the Apex Court in Maharshi Dayanand (supra) and the decision of this Court in Roshan Lal (supra), and Shakti Bhog Foods (supra), I hold that though the Arbitral Tribunal, may in its discretion, treat the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 16 as a preliminary issue, it is not obligatory for the said Tribunal to do, in every case.
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - V K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next