Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Samyak Projects Private Limited vs Ansal Housing & Construction Limited on 13 February, 2019
6. As recorded in the order dated 17.12.2024, two objections have been
raised by learned counsel for the respondent. First, it is contended that the
arbitration agreement between the parties is no longer subsisting. It is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ROHIT ARB.P. 1996/2024 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 3 of 9
KUMAR PATEL
Signing Date:08.01.2025
13:33:08
submitted that initially a unit buyer agreement was entered into between the
parties (which contained an arbitration clause). However, the same was
thereafter superceded by sale deed/s, duly executed by the respondent in
favour of the petitioner/s. It is contended that the said sale deed does not
contain any arbitration agreement, and hence, there no longer subsists an
arbitration agreement between the parties. Second, it is contended that the
petitioner, although being an original allottee of the unit in question, has
transferred/executed sale deeds in respect of the unit/s in favour of certain
third parties. Those third parties have not been made parties to the present
petition. According to the respondent, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed on this ground as well. Reliance has been placed on the judgments
in BKS Galaxy Realtors LLP (previously known as BKS Galaxy Realtors
Pvt. Ltd.) v. Sharp Properties Arbitration Appeal No. 72/2024 2024:BHC-
AS:43163 and Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. v. Samyak Projects Pvt.
Ltd. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12866 which was affirmed by the division bench
in Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Ansal Housing & Construction Limited
2019 SCC OnLine Del 7067.
Ntpc Ltd. vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd. on 10 April, 2023
114. In view of the observations made by this Court in In Re. Interplay, it
is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator
is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the arbitration
agreement, and nothing else. For this reason, we find it difficult to hold
that the observations made in Vidya Drolia and adopted in NTPC v.
SPML Infra Ltd. that the jurisdiction of the referral court when dealing
with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under Section 11 extends to
weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous disputes would
continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In Re. Interplay.
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
14. Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat
Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017
14. Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat
Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
14. Further, in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2020) 20 SCC 760, TRF
Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, (2017) 8 SCC 377 and Bharat
Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 547, it is incumbent on this Court to appoint an independent sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.