Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Shiva Jute Baling Limited vs Hindley And Company Limited on 21 August, 1959

National Agricultural Co-Operative ... vs Alimenta S.A on 6 September, 2010

6. It is contended that in absence of such express bar against a Letter Patent appeal, an appeal to the Division Bench is maintainable even against an appellate order. Further, placing reliance on section 6(2) of Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, stating that the same is pari materia with the provision of Foreign Awards Act, 1961 the counsel states that in Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley and Co. Ltd., 57 CWN 573 : ILR 1953 (1) Cal 29 the Calcutta High Court held that Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge was available; appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Shiva Jute Baling Limited v. Hindley and Company Limited, (1960) 1 SCR 569.
Delhi High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Airfoam Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Director-General Of ... on 5 May, 1972

(15) One other submission made when the respondent's case was opened, remains to be noticed. On the basis of certain observations in Union of India v. M/s. Chaman Lat Loona and Co., and Shiva lute Baling Limited v. Hindley and Company Limited, it was urged, that on an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act the only question the court can decide is whether an arbitration agreement exists or not, and the court is not concerned with and ought not to inquire into the formation of the contract of which it may be a term. It is, of course, true that the ultimate question to be decided in proceedings such as this is whether there is a subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties or not.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

European Grain And Shipping, A Company vs Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd. on 16 August, 1976

27. Although it is a moot point whether Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 will be applicable to the present case Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Mindley and Co. Ltd. it was assumed that Section 35 applied to protocol arbitration, the principle embodied in that section cannot be completely ignored while considering the question of injunction. According to that section no reference nor award can be rendered invalid by reason only of the commencement of legal proceedings, upon the subject of the reference, but when legal proceedings upon the whole of the subject matter of the reference have been commenced between all the parties to the reference and a notice thereof has been given to the arbitrators or umpire, all further proceedings in a pending reference shall unless a stay of proceedings is granted under Section 34 be invalid.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Veena Ojha vs U.P. Stcok Exchange Association Ltd. ... on 7 August, 1998

12. While interpreting Section 33 of the 1940 Act in the case of Shiva Jute Baling Limited v. Hindley and Company Limited, AIR 1959 SC 1357 and R. N. Ganekar and Company v. Hindustan Wires, AIR 1974 SC 303, it was held that the Court is concerned only with the existence, validity and effect of the arbitration agreement and not the merits of the dispute. It is predominantly concerned with the arbitration clause of the agreement.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - D K Seth - Full Document

Shree Bajrang Jute Mills Ltd. vs Fulchand Kanhaiyalal Co. And Anr. on 10 May, 1962

The next case to be considered is another decision of the Supreme Court -- Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley and Co. Ltd. . In that case, the facts were as follows : The appellant company entered into a contract with the respondent company for supply of a quantity of jute. There was an arbitration clause for reference to London Arbitrators. Disputes having arisen, the respondent referred the matter for arbitration. The appellant made an application before this Court under Section 33 of the said Act and made three prayers namely :
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Prabhat Kumar Lala And Ors. vs Jagdish Chandra Narang on 29 September, 1967

16. But it was urged that the supplementary objection was merely an amendment like that of pleadings and it was accepted by the court below. It is well settled that Section 33 of the 1940 Act contemplates an application for two purposes, viz., (i) when it is desired to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, and (ii) when it is desired to have the effect of such agreement or award determined (see Shiv Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley & Co. Ltd., AIR 1959 SC 1357.)
Patna High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Gowthami Solvent Oils Ltd. vs Oil And Natural Gas Commissioner, K.G. ... on 24 September, 2004

"It is clear from the provision that the Court had jurisdiction under this Section (i) when it is desired to challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement; (ii) when it is desired to challenge the validity of that agreement and (iii) when it is desired to have the effect of the arbitration agreement determined. In all these cases it is the arbitration agreement only which is the subject-matter for consideration before the Court. Indeed if an arbitration agreement forms one of the clauses in a contract and that contract is for some reason invalid in law or non-existent in law, it would automatically follow that the arbitration agreement also was invalid or non-existent in the eye of the law. But when it is not the case that the arbitration agreement has become non-existent or invalid for that reason, the Court under Section 33 is merely concerned with the three questions relating to the arbitration agreement only. As pointed out by this Court in Shiva Jute Bating Limited v. Hindley and Co. Ltd. .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - B Nazki - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next