Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April, 2011
However, I am
clearly of the view that, as considered in Booz Allen and Rashtriya Nigam
(supra), the applicant has clearly waived its right to seek reference to
arbitration since it has already made its first statement on the substance of the
dispute.
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited & Anr vs M/S Verma Transport Company on 8 August, 2006
In Rashtriya Nigam (supra), the Supreme Court clearly observed in
paragraph 42 that waiver of a right on the part of a defendant to the lis must
be gathered from the fact situation in each case. In my view, there is no
reason to hold that the applicant had questioned the maintainability of the
suits in view of the arbitration clause. Apart from general objections, in my
view, this is not one of the aspects which the applicant had canvassed prior to
filing the notices of motion. In any case, I am of the view that this is a clear
case of waiver.
The Uniworld Garden Apartment Owners ... vs Unitech Realty Private Ltd on 9 January, 2018
32. I have also observed that the Delhi High Court had in the case of
Uniworld Garden Apartment Owners Association (supra) held that it also
occasioned to consider the decision of this court in Satyavart Sidhantalankar
Vs. Arya Samaj10, which considered the society's registration and came to the
conclusion that once the society is registered, it would be a legal entity
enjoying status, apart from the members constituting the society. The society
having been empowered to this extent, it is not possible to accept the
contention that the society claims "through and under" its members. This
contention on behalf of the applicant-defendant no.1 is therefore rejected.
Clearly the plaintiff-society in Suit No.419 of 2018 is not party to the
arbitration agreement. It cannot be impliedly held to be a party in the facts of
the present case.
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
Reliance is also placed on Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya 9,
which held that third parties to the arbitration agreement cannot be subjected
to arbitration under section 8. Lastly, it is submitted that the reliefs sought in
the plaint in Suit No.1037 of 2018 are declaratory reliefs including those
seeking demolition of the 14th floor. These are necessarily reliefs in rem and
not in personam and therefore the issues raised in the suit are beyond the
8 246 (2018) DLT 735
9 (2003) 5 SCC 531
14/29
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 18:02:42 :::
901-NMS-2149-19 & 95-2020.doc
scope of arbitration between private persons. The prayer seeking demolition
of the 14th floor is a statutory relief under the Maharashtra Ownership of
Flats Act (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and
Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). Furthermore, relief in terms of cancellation of
agreement with respect to 14 th floor between defendant no.1, where-under
defendant no.1 seeks benefit, is not arbitrable and that the court is required to
examine the legality of grant of occupation certificate by SRA. This aspect
however does not appeal to me since SRA is not a party-defendant.
Satyavart Sidhantalankar vs The Arya Samaj on 8 November, 1945
32. I have also observed that the Delhi High Court had in the case of
Uniworld Garden Apartment Owners Association (supra) held that it also
occasioned to consider the decision of this court in Satyavart Sidhantalankar
Vs. Arya Samaj10, which considered the society's registration and came to the
conclusion that once the society is registered, it would be a legal entity
enjoying status, apart from the members constituting the society. The society
having been empowered to this extent, it is not possible to accept the
contention that the society claims "through and under" its members. This
contention on behalf of the applicant-defendant no.1 is therefore rejected.
Clearly the plaintiff-society in Suit No.419 of 2018 is not party to the
arbitration agreement. It cannot be impliedly held to be a party in the facts of
the present case.