Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (6.23 seconds)
Documents citing Zenith Drugs And Allied Agencies Pvt. ... vs M/S. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. on 30 July, 2019

Mumbai Metro One Private Limited vs Hindustan Construction Company on 18 December, 2025

In Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt Ltd. v. Nicholas Piramal India Limited (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogi Agarwal v. Inspiration Clothes & U11 observed that filing application under Section 8 of the Act should relate to the arbitration agreement or to be applicable to the dispute. Paragraph 15 of the decision is usefully quoted as under:-
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Ahuja - Full Document

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

In this context, Mr. Sudhir Chandra submitted that, even after Section 8 of the 1996 Act was amended in 2015, it had been held by the Supreme Court in Emaar MGF Land Ltd v. Aftab Singh5 and Zenith Drugs & Allied Agencies Pvt Ltd v. Nicholas Piramal Ltd6, that the High Court was required to examine, not merely the existence of an arbitration agreement, but also the arbitrability of the dispute. A suit for infringement of trademarks, relatable to Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, he submitted, dealt with the statutory rights of the trademark holder, amenable to adjudication solely in accordance with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the civil court in that regard. The Legal Notice, dated 7th February, 2020, addressed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, too, alleged infringement of trademarks, and not merely violation of the terms of the contract.
Delhi High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 11 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Tewari & Anr vs Trimurti Complex Pvt. Ltd on 22 April, 2024

Reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Zenith Drugs and Allied Agencies Private Ltd. vs. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., reported in (2020) 17 SCC 419 appears to have been misplaced in the context of the points involved in the instant appeal though it has been held by the Apex Court that Section 8 of the Act mandates the fulfillment of the conditions culled out from the aforesaid provision but does not lay down in a specified term, the meaning assigned to an expression "before the submission of the first statement." The reliance was placed by the plaintiff/respondent for the limited purpose that the word „applies‟ connotes filing of an application before the submission of the first statement and, therefore, taking a plea in the written statement that there is an existence of an arbitration agreement is not sufficient. We do not find from the meaningful reading of the judgment rendered in the said report that the Apex Court has either attempted or in fact interpreted the word „applies‟. The Apex Court was considering a matter where an agreement to appoint the appellant therein as clearing and forwarding agent for a specified period; and subsequently a dispute arose when the respondent company therein terminated such agency agreement. A suit was filed before the Court for declaration that the said contract is still valid, subsisting, legal and continuing and the termination is bad and illegal. A compromise was entered into between the parties embodying the terms and conditions reserved therein and subsequently the dispute arose as to whether there is any violation of such terms and conditions and execution proceeding was FA 96 of 2023 17 taken out and the matter emanating therefrom came before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the earlier agreement was superseded by a compromise effected between the parties which does not contain an arbitration clause and, therefore, the plea that the parties should be referred to arbitration is not acceptable. We do not find that the ratio of the said judgment has any applicability in the instant case and the expression „applies‟ before the filing the first statement was not point at issue.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - H Tandon - Full Document
1   2 Next