Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.35 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Virgo Softech Ltd vs National Institute Of Electronics And ... on 18 November, 2022
5. Having perused the decision of the Coordinate
Bench in Virgo Softech Ltd. (supra), I find that similar
pleas as raised by the respondent in the present
petitions, already stand rejected by the Coordinate
Bench, by holding that in view of the specific provision
in the addendum dated 11.01.2018 the petitioner would
be entitled to invoke arbitration, it could not be said
that there was no subsisting dispute between the
parties."
Section 21 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Union Of India Ministry Of Petroleum And ... vs Hardy Exploration And Production ... on 25 September, 2018
"13. The earlier decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this
court, vide order/judgment dated 30.11.2018 in Arb. P.
No. 754/2018 and Arb. P. No. 755/2018, from which
SLP(C) Nos. 5063-5064/2019 was dismissed in-limine
by order dated 25.03.2019, was based on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardy Exploration
(supra). Hardy Exploration essentially said that
without an express opinion or determination signifying
a 'place' as a 'seat', the 'place' referred to in an
arbitration agreement does not "ipso facto assume the
status of seat."
Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd. on 10 December, 2019
Hardy Exploration was overruled in
BGS SGS SOMA (supra), since the test in Hardy
Exploration was considered to be contrary to the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Bharat
Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical
Service, Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 (hereinafter referred
to as 'BALCO'). The test for determination of a 'place'
as a 'seat' was accordingly re-stated to be that unless
there is significant contrary indicia "the inexorable
conclusion is that the stated venue is actually the
juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding.
Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical ... on 6 September, 2012
Hardy Exploration was overruled in
BGS SGS SOMA (supra), since the test in Hardy
Exploration was considered to be contrary to the
decision of the Constitution Bench in Bharat
Aluminium Co. vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical
Service, Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 (hereinafter referred
to as 'BALCO'). The test for determination of a 'place'
as a 'seat' was accordingly re-stated to be that unless
there is significant contrary indicia "the inexorable
conclusion is that the stated venue is actually the
juridical seat of the arbitral proceeding.
State Of West Bengal vs Associated Contractors on 10 September, 2014
12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent also places reliance on a
judgment of the Apex Court in State of W.B. v. Associated Contractors,
(2015) 1 SCC 32. Upon perusal of the said Judgment, this Court is of the
view that the observations contained therein do not have any application to
the facts of the present Petition, as the Apex Court primarily rendered
observation inter alia as to why the High Courts alone have been given the
jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 11.