Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Rodemadan India Limited vs International Trade Expo Centre ... on 17 April, 2006
2. Insofar as the first point taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent is concerned, it is pertinent to note that when an order is passed under Section 11(6) of the said Act for the appointment of an arbitrator, the Chief Justice or his designate does not function as a Court. This has been clearly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rodemadan India Ltd. v. International Trade Expo Centre Ltd. . The Supreme Court was of the view that neither the Chief Justice nor his designate under Section 11(6), is a "court" as contemplated under Section 2(1)(e) the said Act. It was also held that the bar of jurisdiction under Section 42* is only intended to apply to a "court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e). It is, therefore, clear that an order passed under Section 11(6) of the said Act by the Chief Justice or his designate would not fall within the purview of Section 42 thereof. Accordingly, the order dated 7.1.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge functioning as a designate of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the said Act and appointing the learned arbitrator cannot be regarded as an order passed by a Court. Therefore, Section 42 would not have any applicability in respect of this order. Consequently, the first point urged on behalf of the respondent has no merit.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Suits Valuation Act, 1887
1