Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)
M/S Repute Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Oriental Manufactures, Oriental ... on 21 July, 2022 cites

M/S Swastik Gases P.Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp.Ltd on 3 July, 2013

The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Limited (supra) read with BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (supra) clearly indicate that when the arbitration clause itself carries a stipulation of the nature as found in the present case, the application for appointment of an arbitrator can be entertained only by the Courts pertaining to the jurisdiction indicated in the arbitration KHUNTE 2-MCA1350.18.odt 10/10 clause. Section 42 of the Act of 1996 has to be read and interpreted in such a manner that it furthers the intention of the parties as manifested in the arbitration clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 246 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd. on 10 December, 2019

The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Limited (supra) read with BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (supra) clearly indicate that when the arbitration clause itself carries a stipulation of the nature as found in the present case, the application for appointment of an arbitrator can be entertained only by the Courts pertaining to the jurisdiction indicated in the arbitration KHUNTE 2-MCA1350.18.odt 10/10 clause. Section 42 of the Act of 1996 has to be read and interpreted in such a manner that it furthers the intention of the parties as manifested in the arbitration clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 102 - Cited by 230 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs Airvisual Limited on 5 March, 2020

16. This Court is of the opinion that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Enercon (India) Ltd. V. Enercong GMBH and Mankastu Impex (P) Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd. (supra) cannot be of much assistance to the applicant, firstly because the said judgments did not deal with such a specific arbitration clause and the said judgments were more concerned with the question as to what could be said to be a seat of arbitration as opposed to a venue of arbitration. It is in that context, the Supreme Court has recommended adopting a pragmatic and common sense approach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 48 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs Kamachi Industries Ltd. on 25 July, 2019

The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Limited (supra) read with BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd. (supra) clearly indicate that when the arbitration clause itself carries a stipulation of the nature as found in the present case, the application for appointment of an arbitrator can be entertained only by the Courts pertaining to the jurisdiction indicated in the arbitration KHUNTE 2-MCA1350.18.odt 10/10 clause. Section 42 of the Act of 1996 has to be read and interpreted in such a manner that it furthers the intention of the parties as manifested in the arbitration clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 119 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Antrix Corporation Limited vs Devas Multimedia Private Limited on 17 January, 2020

KHUNTE 2-MCA1350.18.odt 8/10 "59. Equally incorrect is the finding in Antrix Corporation Ltd. (supra) that Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be rendered ineffective and useless. Section 42 is meant to avoid conflicts in jurisdiction of courts by placing the supervisory jurisdiction over all arbitral proceedings in connection with the arbitration in one court exclusively. This is why the section begins with a non obstante clause, and then goes on to state "...where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a court..." It is obvious that the application made under this part to a court must be a court which has jurisdiction to decide such application. The subsequent holdings of this court, that where a seat is designated in an agreement, the courts of the seat alone have jurisdiction, would require that all applications under Part I be made only in the court where the seat is located, and that court alone then has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitral agreement. So read, Section 42 is not rendered ineffective or useless. Also, where it is found on the facts of a particular case that either no "seat" is designated by agreement, or the so-called "seat" is only a convenient "venue", then there may be several courts where a part of the cause of action arises that may have jurisdiction. Again, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be preferred before a court in which part of the cause of action arises in a case where parties have not agreed on the "seat" of arbitration, and before such "seat" may have been determined, on the facts of a particular case, by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 20(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In both these situations, the earliest application having been made to a Court in which a part of the cause of action arises would then be the exclusive court under Section 42, which would have control over the arbitral proceedings. For all these reasons, the law stated by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in this regard is incorrect and is overruled."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Enercon (India) Ltd And Ors vs Enercon Gmbh And Anr on 14 February, 2014

16. This Court is of the opinion that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Enercon (India) Ltd. V. Enercong GMBH and Mankastu Impex (P) Ltd. v. Airvisual Ltd. (supra) cannot be of much assistance to the applicant, firstly because the said judgments did not deal with such a specific arbitration clause and the said judgments were more concerned with the question as to what could be said to be a seat of arbitration as opposed to a venue of arbitration. It is in that context, the Supreme Court has recommended adopting a pragmatic and common sense approach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 76 - Cited by 171 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document
1   2 Next