Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Ministry Of Sound International Ltd. vs M/S. Indus Renaissance Partners ... on 7 January, 2009

R.K.Productions Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.N.K.Theatres Pvt. Ltd on 11 December, 2012

16. Contending that even though Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the agreement which contains arbitration Clause, Clause 14 of the agreement is widely worded and that the entire subject matter of the suit is covered by arbitration, learned counsel for 1st Defendant placed reliance upon 156 (2009) DLT 406 : MANU/DE/0010/2009 [Ministry of Sound International Ltd. v. Indus Renaisance Parners Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.]. In the said case before the single Judge of Delhi High Court, Defendants 4 and 5 thereon were not parties to the arbitration agreement which was entered into between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. By a reading of the said decision, it is seen that Plaintiff expressed that he had no intention to open new night club in collaboration with Defendants 4 and 5. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding that Defendants 4 and 5 were not parties to the arbitration agreement, the single Judge of Delhi High Court directed the parties to refer the matter to arbitration.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

M/S Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd vs M/S D S Foods And Ors on 27 February, 2020

7. Counsel for defendants referred "Ministry of Sound International Ltd. Vs. Indus Renaissance Partners Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 6" He submitted that the dispute is arbitrable and arbitral tribunal has already decided the issue of interim injunction by deciding application U/s 17 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act and now, plaintiff have withdrawn the claims without seeking liberty from arbitral, whereas counter­claim filed by the defendants are still being adjudicated by the arbitrator.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited ... vs Lectro E-Mobility Private Limited & ... on 2 March, 2021

20. Mr. Sudhir Chandra also pleaded waiver, by the defendants, of their right to initiate arbitration proceedings, in respect of the dispute at hand, as Hero Electric had filed a civil suit, against the F-1 family group in Patna, relating to use of the mark "Hero". This resulted, ipso facto, in waiver of the right of Hero Electric to invoke the arbitral process, as held by this Court in Kush Dairy Ltd v. H.P. Printers Pvt Ltd7, Raj & Associates v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd8 and Ministry of Sound International Ltd v. Indus Renaissance Partners Entertainment Pvt Ltd9 . The defendants, he submits, could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate. The right to seek recourse to arbitration, being a contractual right, was capable of being waived.
Delhi High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 11 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Shri Roshan Lal Gupta vs Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt Ltd & Anr on 11 February, 2009

Recently another Single Judge of this court in Ministry of Sound International Ltd v. Indus Renaissance Partners Entertainment Pvt Ltd 156 (2009) DLT 406 held that where a suit was instituted after the plea under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act had been taken in a suit filed by other party would not tantamount to waiver / abandonment of the right under the arbitration agreement. It was further held that the case would be different where before taking a plea of arbitration, a suit is instituted. Following the same reasoning I am not only of the view that on a meaningful reading of the written statement, the stock OMP 205/1997 & RSA 131/2002 Page 10 of 25 broker had also applied for reference of the parties to arbitration within the meaning of Section 8 of the Act but also, even if he had not so applied, having instituted the arbitration proceedings before filing the written statement cannot be said to have, by filing the written statement waived or abandoned arbitration.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 30 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next