Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 45 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd vs M/S Aksh Optifibre Ltd., & Anr on 12 August, 2005
Reiterating the
law laid down in Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.
(2005) 7 SCC 234, it was held that the correct approach to the review of
the arbitration agreement is restricted to prima facie finding that there
exists an arbitration agreement that is not null and void, inoperative or
incapable of being performed. The key rationale for holding that the
courts‟ review of the arbitration agreement should be limited to a prima
facie standard is the principle of competence-competence. Further, if the
courts are empowered to fully scrutinise the arbitration agreement, an
arbitral proceeding would have to be stayed until such time that the court
seized of the matter renders a decision on the arbitration agreement. This
would defeat the credo and ethos of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
which is to enable expeditious arbitration without avoidable intervention
by the judicial authorities. The rule of priority in favour of the arbitrators
is counterbalanced by the courts‟ power to review the existence and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:22.04.2022 ARB.P. 1124/2021 Page 9 of 11
17:05:35
validity of the arbitration agreement at the end of the arbitral process. It
was further held that if on a bare perusal of the agreement it is found that a
particular dispute is not relatable to the arbitration agreement, then,
perhaps the court may decide the relief sought for by a party in a Section
11 petition. However, if there is a contestation with regard to the issue as
to whether the dispute falls within the realm of the arbitration agreement,
then the best course would be to allow the arbitrator to form a view in the
matter.
Section 24 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Chloro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc., ... on 20 February, 2006
12. The decision in Chrolo Controls (supra) clearly holds that in
exceptional cases applying the principle of "composite performance" or
implied authority, even a third party who is not a signatory to the
arbitration agreement can be joined in arbitration.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
9. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision reported
as (2003) 5 SCC 531 Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Shah Pandya
and Another wherein it was held that if the claim vis-a-vis third party is
integral to the dispute between the parties to the agreement, the same
cannot be referred to arbitration. Supreme Supreme Court held :
1