Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
M/S. Krishi Infratech vs The Union Of India on 30 November, 2020 cites

M/S Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs Pradyuat Bed Murman on 5 September, 2019

Insofar as the various contentions/defences urged on behalf of the respondents with regard to the merits of the claims of the petitioner is concerned, having regard to the limited/restricted scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that the scope of adjudication in the present petition is restricted, limited and confined to examination of the existence of an Arbitration Agreement/Clause only, I am of the view that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of MAYAVATI TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN - (2019) 8 SCC 714 and UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., VS. NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. passed in SLP(C).11476/2018 on 27.11.2019, coupled with the undisputed fact that Clause 64(3)(b) constitutes an Arbitration Agreement, it is necessary that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents requires to be referred to Arbitration by leaving open all other issues to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 85 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan ... vs Northern Coal Field Limited on 27 November, 2019

Insofar as the various contentions/defences urged on behalf of the respondents with regard to the merits of the claims of the petitioner is concerned, having regard to the limited/restricted scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that the scope of adjudication in the present petition is restricted, limited and confined to examination of the existence of an Arbitration Agreement/Clause only, I am of the view that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of MAYAVATI TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN - (2019) 8 SCC 714 and UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., VS. NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. passed in SLP(C).11476/2018 on 27.11.2019, coupled with the undisputed fact that Clause 64(3)(b) constitutes an Arbitration Agreement, it is necessary that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents requires to be referred to Arbitration by leaving open all other issues to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 153 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1