Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (2.32 seconds)
Documents citing Taipack Limited And Ors. vs Ram Kishore Nagar Mal on 23 May, 2007

Neha Chopra And Others vs M/S Om Prakash And Company on 26 November, 2024

36. The Court relied upon "Taipack Limited & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar [2007 (3) ARBLR 402 Delhi]" and reiterated "34. In order to ascertain whether an agreement exists between the parties, it is necessary to establish that there was consensus ad idem between the parties. In the present case, it is not possible to accept that petitioner no. 1 had accepted the arbitration clause printed at the bottom of the invoice, as the same was neither filled in nor signed by petitioner no. 1. It is also not possible to accept that petitioner no. 1 had agreed to the arbitration clause."
Delhi District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd vs Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd on 28 February, 2017

20. The Court finds that the facts of the case at hand are more or less similar to the facts of the above decision in Taipack Limited & Ors. v. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal (supra). Here also, the Respondent seeks to rely upon the endorsement on each of the invoices. That endorsement is only for the quantities as indicated in the invoices having been received. There is no deemed acceptance of the conditions appended to the invoices. The mere endorsement of Mr. Sanjeev that the quantity is ok cannot lead to an inference that the Petitioner agreed to the arbitration clause printed o the invoice.
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 156 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Hitesh Coal Traders vs Indapur Dairy And Milk Products Ltd on 5 May, 2026

29) Reliance by Ms. Helaskar on judgment of this Court in TCI Infrastructure Limited (supra) is inapposite. In that judgment, the issue _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 20 of 24 5 May 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 15:58:53 ::: Neeta Sawant CARAP-93 OF 2026 was about absence of arbitration clause in purchase order but presence of arbitration clause in a 'proposal' forwarded on behalf of the Respondent therein which was unilaterally signed only by the Respondent. In the facts of that case, this Court held that mere forwarding of proposal containing arbitration clause did not constitute arbitration agreement between the parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Advantech Engineering ... vs Savani Carrying Pvt. Ltd on 25 August, 2023

9. As held by the Delhi High Court in Taipack Limited and others Vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal reported in MANU/DE/8199/2007 that the signature of a consignee or his agent found on the back side of the consignment note can be considered only as an acknowledgment of receipt of goods. So without any valid arbitration agreement, the petitioners could not be subjected themselves to the arbitration proceedings. The learned Arbitrator has been appointed unilaterally by the respondent by reserving such right upon himself through the printed clause found on the backside of the consignment notes.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nsk India Sales Company Private Ltd vs Proactive Universal Trading Company ...

17. On consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Taipack Limited and Others vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal (2007(3) ARB.L.R. (402) (Delhi) and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court Inspiration Cloths & U vs. Yash Traders in (Manu/WB/1031/2014), set forth the correct legal position with which I am in full agreement, especially in the given facts of the case. An arbitration agreement has to be in writing. This is mandatory. One of the methods by which an arbitration agreement can be construed to be in writing is set out in Clause(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the said Act. It is specifically provided that the same can be by exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommuncation which provide a record of the agreement. There are thus specific modes provided by which the agreement can be construed to be in writing. There is no reference to a method whereby such an arbitration clause can be incorporated by implication  from a collective set of documents of trade where one such contained the arbitration cluase.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document

No.2 Was Also Appointed As The ... vs Were Often Returned Dishonoured And ... on 22 January, 2021

36. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision reported in 2007(3) - ARB.L.R. - 402 (Delhi) (Taipack Limited and Ors. vs. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal), a similar question arose as in the instant case as to whether 'C' Form supplied by the Petitioner therein constituted acknowledgment of debt owed to the respondent so as to give a fresh lease to the commencement of limitation. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows: -
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swastik Pipe Limited vs Psr Aqua And Engineers Private Limited on 15 July, 2024

"17. On consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Taipack Limited v. Ram Kishore Nagar Mal (2007 (3) ARB.L.R. (402)) (Delhi) and the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court Inspiration Cloths & U v. Yash Traders in 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 19825, set forth the correct legal position with which I am in full agreement, especially in the given facts of the case. An arbitration agreement has to be in writing. This is mandatory. One of the methods by which an arbitration agreement can be construed to be in writing is set out in Clause(b) of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the said Act. It is specifically provided that the same can be by exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication 15 Emphasis supplied.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Sanirish Textile vs Shri Vidur Khanna on 23 May, 2025

33. Following the above said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Ors. (Supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Proddatur Cable TV Digi Services v. Citi Cable Network Limited (2020) 267 DLT 51 also held that it would be impermissible for a party to unilaterally appoint an arbitrator as in terms of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act read with the Seventh Schedule of the said Act, an employee would be ineligible to act as an arbitrator by virtue of the law as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. (Supra) and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Ors. (Supra). It was further held by their Lordships that such ineligibility would also extend to a person appointed by such officials who are otherwise ineligible to act as arbitrators.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next