Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.29 seconds)
Cnh Industrial Capital (India) Private ... vs National Win Agencies Through Its ... on 14 February, 2023 cites

M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd on 3 July, 2013

18. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts. In the present case, the parties have agreed that the "venue" of arbitration shall be at Bhubaneswar. Considering the agreement of the parties having Bhubaneswar as the venue of arbitration, the intention of the parties is to exclude all other courts. As held in Swastik [Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 157] , non-use of words like "exclusive jurisdiction", "only", "exclusive", "alone" is not decisive and does not make any material difference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 246 - R M Lodha - Full Document

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

Following Hakam Singh [Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286] , A.B.C. Laminart [A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] and Hanil Era Textiles [Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671] , this Court in paras 27 and 28 of the Report held as under: (Rajasthan SEB case [Rajasthan SEB v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 3 SCC 107 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 770] , SCC pp. 114-15) "27. The aforesaid legal proposition settled by this Signature Not Verified Court in respect of territorial jurisdiction and Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:16.02.2023 15:29:07 applicability of Section 20 of the Code to the Arbitration Act is clear, unambiguous and explicit. The said position is binding on both the parties who were contesting the present proceeding. Both the parties with their open eyes entered into the aforesaid purchase order and agreements thereon which categorically provide that all disputes arising between the parties out of the agreements would be adjudicated upon and decided through the process of arbitration and that no court other than the court at Jaipur shall have jurisdiction to entertain or try the same. In both the agreements in Clause 30 of the general conditions of the contract it was specifically mentioned that the contract shall for all purposes be construed according to the laws of India and subject to jurisdiction only at Jaipur in Rajasthan courts only and in addition in one of the purchase order the expression used was that the court at Jaipur only would have jurisdiction to entertain or try the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1151 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Hakam Singh vs M/S. Gammon (India) Ltd on 8 January, 1971

Following Hakam Singh [Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286] , A.B.C. Laminart [A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163] and Hanil Era Textiles [Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671] , this Court in paras 27 and 28 of the Report held as under: (Rajasthan SEB case [Rajasthan SEB v. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 3 SCC 107 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 770] , SCC pp. 114-15) "27. The aforesaid legal proposition settled by this Signature Not Verified Court in respect of territorial jurisdiction and Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:16.02.2023 15:29:07 applicability of Section 20 of the Code to the Arbitration Act is clear, unambiguous and explicit. The said position is binding on both the parties who were contesting the present proceeding. Both the parties with their open eyes entered into the aforesaid purchase order and agreements thereon which categorically provide that all disputes arising between the parties out of the agreements would be adjudicated upon and decided through the process of arbitration and that no court other than the court at Jaipur shall have jurisdiction to entertain or try the same. In both the agreements in Clause 30 of the general conditions of the contract it was specifically mentioned that the contract shall for all purposes be construed according to the laws of India and subject to jurisdiction only at Jaipur in Rajasthan courts only and in addition in one of the purchase order the expression used was that the court at Jaipur only would have jurisdiction to entertain or try the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 212 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 Next