Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd vs M/S. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr on 12 August, 2005
connotes that the legislature intends that the referral court has to inspect
or scrutinize the dealings between the parties for the existence of an
arbitration agreement. Moreover, the expression "examination" does not
connote or imply a laborious or contested inquiry. On the other hand,
Section 16 provides that the arbitral tribunal can "rule" on its
jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of an arbitration
agreement. A "ruling" connotes adjudication of disputes after admitting
evidence from the parties. Therefore, it is evident that the referral court is
only required to examine the existence of arbitration agreements, whereas
the arbitral tribunal ought to rule on its jurisdiction, including the issues
pertaining to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. A
similar view was adopted by this Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co.
Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd."