Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.98 seconds)
Arabian Exports Private Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 6 May, 2025 cites

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dicitex Furnishing Ltd. on 13 November, 2019

In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dicitex Furnishing Ltd.5, a two-Judge Bench of this Court considered the objection of the insurer about maintainability of the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act in which the High Court had appointed an arbitrator. The objection was that the claimant had signed the discharge voucher and had accepted the amount offered, thus signifying ‘accord and 4 (2021) 2 SCC 1 5 (2020) 4 SCC 621 21 satisfaction’ which in turn meant that there was no arbitrable dispute. This Court rejected the objection of the insurer and held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 17 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S. Associated Construction vs Pawanhans Helicopters Pvt. Ltd on 7 May, 2008

26. An overall reading of Dicitex's application [under Section 11(6)] clearly shows that its grievance with respect to the involuntary nature of the discharge voucher was articulated. It cannot be disputed that several letters — spanning over two years—stating that it was facing financial crisis on account of the delay in settling the claim, were addressed to the appellant. This Court is conscious of the fact that an application under Section 11(6) is in the form of a pleading which merely seeks an order of the court, for appointment of an arbitrator. It cannot be conclusive of the pleas or contentions that the claimant or the party concerned can take in the arbitral proceedings. At this stage, therefore, the court which is required to ensure that an arbitrable dispute exists, has to be prima facie convinced about the genuineness or credibility of the plea of coercion; it cannot be too particular about the nature of the plea, which necessarily has to be made and established in the substantive (read : arbitration) proceeding. If the court were to take a contrary approach and 22 minutely examine the plea and judge its credibility or reasonableness, there would be a danger of its denying a forum to the applicant altogether, because rejection of the application would render the finding (about the finality of the discharge and its effect as satisfaction) final, thus, precluding the applicant of its right even to approach a civil court. There are decisions of this Court (Associated Construction v. Pawanhans Helicopters Ltd. and Boghara Polyfab) which upheld the concept of economic duress. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning in the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 148 - H S Bedi - Full Document
1   2 Next