Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
In Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya,
(2003) 5 SCC 531, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that there cannot
be a bifurcation of causes of action when some parties are subject to an
arbitration agreement, and others are not. The legislative intent does not
permit splitting up the subject matter of a suit before a judicial authority,
as this would lead to parallel proceedings and inconsistent findings.
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc on 15 March, 2018
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for
Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Ors. (2018) has
clarified that the 2015 amendment to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is
prospective in nature. It applies only to arbitral and related court
proceedings commenced on or after the amendment's enactment. Since
the present suits were instituted in 2013, the amended provision is
inapplicable.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
4. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2
SCC 1.
1