Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing J.K. Jain & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 26 September, 1995

Machino Plastics Ltd. And Machno ... vs Caparo Maruti Ltd., Caparo India Ltd., ... on 10 November, 2003

18. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged arbitration agreement is contained in a document referred to as Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 7.1.1994 and the said JVA is not signed by any person for and on behalf of the petitioner namely, Machino Plastics Ltd. and Machino Finance Pvt. Ltd. Hence arbitration agreement under question is not signed by the petitioner companies and the said joint venture agreement is also not signed by Mr. Jindal for and on behalf of any person. Further no person has signed on behalf of M/s. Caparo Maruti Ltd. and Caparo India Ltd. or other respondents mentioned in the petition. The learned counsel was of the view that the authorities cited by the applicants under arbitration act, 1940 namely, J.K. Jain and Ors. v. DDA and Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 318) and Renu Sagar Power Co. Ltd. v. Journal Electric Co. Ltd. (AIR 1984-4 SC Cases 6, 7, 9) are in relation to Arbitration Act, 1940 and are not applicable in relation to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Company Law Board Cites 53 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Surat vs Messrs on 11 February, 2010

In J.K. Jain and others v. Delhi Development Authority And Others (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that in order to confer jurisdiction on the Arbitrator to hear and decide the dispute, there must exist an Arbitration Agreement and if there is no such agreement, there is want or lack of jurisdiction in the Arbitrator. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court are relevant and are reproduced hereinbelow:
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Sh. Deepak Duggal vs Sh. Subhash Chand Jian on 18 September, 2011

In AIR 1996 SC 318, J.K. Jain & Ors. v/s DDA, the arbitration clause was not included in the agreement itself but the terms and conditions of the tender form including term about reference of disputes to arbitration, was agreed to be made part of main agreement and binding between parties. However, in the instant case, there is also no previous agreement between the parties or the proposal from the side of the respondent which was subsequently become part of the agreement or contract between the parties.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of U.P & Ors vs M/S Combined Chemicals Company Pvt.Ltd on 4 January, 2011

SCC 127 and J.K. Jain and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others (1995) 6 SCC 571. The High Court also rejected the appellants' plea that refusal of the Arbitrator to adjourn the proceedings to await the result of the first appeal filed against order dated 28.3.1989 amounted to violation of the rules of natural justice and held that in the absence of a stay by the High Court, the Arbitrator was entitled to proceed with the matter and the appellants did not have any legitimate cause to abstain from the arbitration proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 15 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

H. L. Sharma S/O Ram Sarup Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority Through ... on 8 March, 2011

By this common order, we propose to dispose of five connected Transferred Applications bearing numbers 45/2007, 50/2007, 51/2007, 52/2007 and 90/2007, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all cases. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The facts in all their details would be extracted from TA No.51/2007 in the matter of J. K. Mittal v Delhi Development Authority, whereas as regards other cases, the facts shall be mentioned in brevity.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next