Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd vs Invest Import on 9 October, 1980
10. Thus, the arbitration as provided for is by a foreign Arbitral Tribunal. A similar case, wherein a foreign Arbitral Tribunal was agreed between the parties came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest Import . In that case, the plaintiff therein, a labour contractor, entered into a sub-contract with the defendant, a Yogoslavia based company, which in turn, had entered into a contract with the Bihar State Electricity Board for setting up the power station. The plaintiff sub-contractor, pursuant to the sub-contract dated 10-7-1961, had to supply skilled labour, unskilled labour and apprentice labour, to carry out the erection work and incidentally to do other things provided in the sub-contract. The plaintiff claims that it carried out certain extra work for which it was entitled to recover Rs. 70,000/- from the respondent. There were also other claims made by the plaintiff and the plaintiff therein, filed an original suit in the Calcutta High Court to recover a sum of Rs. 4,25,343/- from the defendant therein. On service of notice on the defendant, they appeared before the court and filed an application purporting to be under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code contending that the sub-contract between the plaintiff and defendant incorporates an agreement to refer all the disputes arising out of the contract to arbitration and, therefore, the suit should be stayed. The arbitration agreement in that case provided that the arbitration has to be done by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris with application of Yogoslav materials and economical law. In the circumstances of the case, their Lordships considered the question as to whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or not. In that context, in paragraph 22 of the Judgment, their Lordships observed as follows :
1