Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)
Raman Lamba And Others vs D.M. Harish And Others on 11 September, 1990 cites

Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. vs Govindji Jevat And Co. on 24 August, 1983

The High Court of Delhi had requisite jurisdiction to entertain the said applications under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. The said applications were prior applications in point of time. Therefore, the said award could not have been filed in this Court in view of the provisions contained in S. 31(4) of the Arbitration Act. Similar view has been taken by our High Court is the case of Sree Saraswathi Mills Ltd. v. Messrs Govindji Jevat and Co., reported in 1984 (1) Bom CR at page 34.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S V Manohar - Full Document

A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989

In this respect, I may refer in passing to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem . In this case, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Saikia, speaking for the Bench, observed that the ouster clause must be construed very strictly and exclusion of jurisdiction of the competent Court which had jurisdiction under the law of the land could not be easily inferred. It is not necessary to pursue this matter further, as a clause entitling the arbitrators to fix venue of the meeting at any place they deem fit, including Bombay, has nothing whatsoever to do with selection of forum for filing of the award or judicial proceeding. In my judgment, Cl. (11) of the arbitration agreement is totally irrelevant and reliance on the said clause is misconceived and misplaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document
1