Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (3.12 seconds)
Documents citing Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd vs M/S. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr on 12 August, 2005

Dlf Limited vs Pnb Housing Finance Limited & Ors. on 22 March, 2024

connotes that the legislature intends that the referral court has to inspect or scrutinize the dealings between the parties for the existence of an arbitration agreement. Moreover, the expression "examination" does not connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry. On the other hand, Section 16 provides that the arbitral tribunal can "rule" on its jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. A "ruling" connotes adjudication of disputes after admitting evidence from the parties. Therefore, it is evident that the referral court is only required to examine the existence of arbitration agreements, whereas the arbitral tribunal ought to rule on its jurisdiction, including the issues pertaining to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. A similar view was adopted by this Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. AkshOptifibre Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 25 April, 2023

“105. …the object of the Act would be defeated if proceedings remain pending in the court even after commencing of the arbitration. It is precisely for this reason that I am inclined to the view that at the pre- reference stage contemplated by Section 45, the court is required to take only a prima facie view for making the reference, leaving the parties to a full trial either before the Arbitral Tribunal or before the court at the post-award stage” 55.3. Pursuant to Shin Etsu(Supra), the 2019 Amendment to Section 45 states:
Supreme Court of India Cites 229 - Cited by 104 - K Joseph - Full Document

Generic Web Trade Ltd. And Anr vs India Web Trade Llc And Anr on 7 March, 2008

In the case of Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. and another AIR 2005 SC 3766, the question that arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was regarding nature of adjudication contemplated by Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when an objection about the agreement being "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed"
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devinder Kumar Gupta vs Realogy Corporation & Anr on 4 May, 2011

14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also referred to the decision of Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. (supra). This judgment, as noted earlier, was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and his decision has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. Even CS(OS) No. 829/2011 Page 18 of 19 otherwise, I find no proposition of law in this judgment which would entitle the plaintiff to dispute the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement by way of a suit before a Civil Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - V K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next