Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 151 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing Indowind Energy Ltd vs Wescare (I) Ltd.& Anr on 27 April, 2010

Pramod Kumar Sharma vs . M/S Style Show & Sale on 3 December, 2014

18. The court is of the opinion that facts and circumstances of the present case are distinct from the case of Indowind Engery Limited vs. Wescare (India) Limited & Another (Supra). In the said case, there was nothing to suggest that the other company in that case ever acted upon the agreement entered into between the parties, which contained arbitration clause. In the Arb.210/14 Page 6 of 11 Pramod Kumar Sharma vs. M/s Style Show & Sale present case, Learned Arbitrator has considered in details that the objector had acted upon the offer of the claimant, which contained the arbitration clause also.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Highway Authority Of India vs Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Ltd on 22 December, 2022

The present case does not envisage a situation of the kind which prevailed before this Court in Indowind [Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 306 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 397] . The present case relates to a post award situation. The enforcement of the arbitral award has been sought against the appellant on the basis that it claims under KCP and is bound by the award. Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 postulates that an arbitral award "shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively" (emphasis supplied). The expression "claiming under", in its ordinary meaning, directs attention to the source of the right. The expression includes cases of devolution and assignment of interest (Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar [ 3rd Edn., Vol. I, p. 818.] ).
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Banas Sands Ttc Jv vs Pkss Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 13 April, 2017

36. On the face of it, it does appear that in the absence of any specific OMP No. 22/2012 Page 14 of 19 contract between the Petitioner and PKSS, the Petitioner did have a defence against participation in the arbitration proceedings. This legal position is clear from the Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (I) Ltd. (supra) where on facts it was found that Wescare itself had not entered into an agreement with Indowind or had referred to agreement dated 24th February, 2006, which contained the arbitration clause. In other words on the facts of that case it was held that none of the sub-clauses of Section 7 of the Act were attracted in order to infer the existence of an arbitration agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs M/S.Jindal Drilling And Industries Ltd on 28 April, 2015

43. In my view, the petitioners have in this case failed to prove that there were any common shareholders. It is not in dispute that the respondents herein were not parties to the said contract awarded by the petitioners to the said DEPL. No letter of comfort or guarantee has been obtained from the respondents making them liable in case of any liability of the said DEPL under the said contract awarded by the petitioners to the said DEPL. The respondents being separate legal entity, in my view, thus could not be made liable for the liabilities, if any, of the said DEPL against the petitioners unless the same was under any agreement independently between the petitioners and the respondents herein. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indowind Energy Limited (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next