Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)
M/S.Chennai Network Infrastructure ... vs T.Kannan on 15 July, 2022 cites

Garware Wall Ropers Ltd. vs Coastal Marine Constructions ... on 10 April, 2019

9(iv) Learned counsel for respondent drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Garware case (Garware Wall Ropes Limited Vs. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Limited reported in (2019) 9 SCC 209). The most relevant and instructive paragraph in Garware is Paragraph 22 and the same reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 63 - Cited by 164 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia on 12 October, 2017

9(vi) There is one other aspect of the matter (though not projected) which this Court reminds itself about and that question pertains to an arbitration clause in a lease deed or in other words, the question as to whether arbitration agreement qua a lease or in other words whether disputes arising out of a lease deed are arbitrable is one which a larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seizin of, as 26/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P(Com.Div.)No.307 of 2022 Himangni case (Himangni Enterprises Vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia reported in (2017) 10 SCC 706) has been referred to a larger Bench vide Vidya Drolia & Ors. Vs.Durga Trading Corporation reported in 2019 SCConline SC 358. However, in the instant case, as the petitioners have abridged the scope of instant OP to one predicated on an arbitration clause in said licence agreement alone and not the lease deed, it may not be necessary to advert to these aspects of the matter any further detail in this order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 90 - A M Sapre - Full Document

M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 11 January, 2021

(a) Lease deed dated 20.05.2004 (Ex.A1) before the AT is insufficiently stamped and it is also unregistered being a lease deed for over one year. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the lease deed i.e., clause 6 is not valid in the light of N.N.Global principle [N.N.Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 13];
Supreme Court of India Cites 110 - Cited by 136 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs M/S Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. on 10 March, 2021

The only other facet added to a Section 11 legal drill is also only in exceptional / rare cases and that is ex facie barred by limitation plea i.e., Nortel principle [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another Vs. Nortel 17/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P(Com.Div.)No.307 of 2022 Networks India Private Limited reported in (2021) 5 SCC 738]. Therefore, CNIL was certainly well within its rights to raise arbitration agreement issue i.e., insufficiently stamped / unregistered document issue before AT, it did so but AT has returned a finding by saying that the respondent before this Court as claimant has restricted its claim to the licence agreement i.e., Ex.A2 dated 01.07.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 175 - I Malhotra - Full Document

M/S Duro Felguera S.A vs M/S. Gangavaram Port Limited on 10 October, 2017

In other words, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope of a OP under Section 11 of A and C Act in Duro Felguera, S.A. [Duro Felguera, S.A. versus Gangavaram Port Limited reported in (2017) 9 SCC 729I] and Mayavati Trading [Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman reported in (2019) 8 SCC 18/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P(Com.Div.)No.307 of 2022 7961] are declaratory qua scope, contours and confines of a Section 11 OP. This Court reminds itself about these instructive principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court before embarking upon the exercise of a discussion qua rival submissions and giving dispositive reasoning on the same. Relevant Paragraphs in Duro Felguera S.A are Paragraphs 47 and 59, which read as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 476 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008

5. Aforementioned clause 8.5 of Practice Directions has been made by drawing inspiration from Fiza Developers case law [Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited Vs. AMCI (India) Private Limited reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796] wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Section 34 legal drill is a one issue summary procedure. It was also clarified that by saying one issue it does not mean that the lis should turn on one issue but the protagonist of Section 34 petition putting to challenge the arbitral award itself is the issue before Section 34 Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 151 - D V Kumar - Full Document
1