Ameet Lalchand Shah vs Rishabh Enterprises on 3 May, 2018
38. The reliance placed on the said decision is misplaced.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)Chloro Controls(I) P.Ltd vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc ... on 28 September, 2012
In Chloro
Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.
(supra), the Supreme Court had explained that non-signatories or third
parties could be subjected to Arbitration without their prior consent in
certain exceptional circumstances. In that case, the Supreme Court was
examining a composite transaction, which was effected through various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed ARB.P. 175/2020 Page 15 of 24
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
subsidiary agreements. It is in that context, the Supreme Court had
observed as under:-
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Avitel Post Studioz Limited And Ors. vs Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) Limited on 19 August, 2020
Arb. P. No. 494/2019 decided on 27.05.2020 and the decision of the
Supreme Court in Avitel Post Studioz Limited and Others v. HSBC PI
Holdings (Mauritius) Limited: (2020) SCC OnLine SC 656, in support
of his contention.
Rajesh Gupta vs Mohit Lata Sunda & Ors. on 27 May, 2020
22. He also countered the contention that since GAIL had made
allegations of fraud against petitioner no.1, the disputes could not be
referred to Arbitration. He referred to the decision of a Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Rajesh Gupta v. Smt. Mohit Lata Sunda & Ors.:
M/S N.N. Global Mercantile Private ... vs M/S Indo Unique Flame Ltd. on 11 January, 2021
In N. N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique
Flame Ltd and Ors.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 13, the Supreme Court had
observed as under:
1