Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.56 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Avitel Post Studioz Limited And Ors. vs Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) Limited on 19 August, 2020
74. The judgment in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd.
v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 656] interprets Section 17 of the Contract Act to hold that
Section 17 would apply if the contract itself is obtained by fraud or
cheating. Thereby, a distinction is made between a contract obtained
by fraud, and post-contract fraud and cheating. The latter would fall
outside Section 17 of the Contract Act and, therefore, the remedy for
damages would be available and not the remedy for treating the
contract itself as void.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
arbitrable. While taking the aforesaid view, I draw support from the
following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vidya
Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (supra):
Garware Wall Ropers Ltd. vs Coastal Marine Constructions ... on 10 April, 2019
In addition to Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. case [Garware Wall
Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) 9
SCC 209 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 324] , this Court in Narbheram Power
& Steel (P) Ltd. [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narbheram Power &
Steel (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 534 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 484] and
Hyundai Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. [United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Hyundai Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd., (2018) 17 SCC 607 :
Idcol Cement Ltd. vs P. Roy Chowdhury And Company And Ors. on 29 June, 2004
20. The judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in IDCOL Cement
Limited Vs. P. Roy Chowdhury and Company 2005 (1) CHN158, in my
considered opinion, is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the
case before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, the suit was filed by the plaintiff
against a partnership firm (defendant no. 1), two of its partners (defendants
no. 2 and 3) and 13 other defendants who were not a parties to the
arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 firm. Under the
aforesaid circumstances, it was held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that
the matter could not have been referred to arbitration on an application u/s
8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by one of the partners
of defendant no. 1 firm in his individual capacity and not for and on behalf
of partnership firm. On the other hand, in the present case the dispute is
between the partners of a firm who all are parties to the arbitration
agreement in their individual capacity.