Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Galaxy Infra And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. on 8 March, 2021
In
this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in Praveen
Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
[(2021) 5 SCC 671], was relied on. For the proposition that merely
because that the contract has come to an end by its termination
due to breach, the arbitration clause does not get perished nor it is
rendered inoperative.
M/S. Magma Leasing & Fin. Ltd. & Anr vs Potluri Madhavilata & Anr on 18 September, 2009
But would survive for the resolution of
disputes arising 'in respect of' or 'with regard to' or 'under the
contract', pressed into service was the decision in Branch
Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. vs. Potluri
Madhavilata [(2009) 10 SCC 103].
Damodar Valley Corporation vs K. K. Kar on 12 November, 1973
addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that decision in the
context of Sections 62 and 39 of the Contract Act, 1872, was
whether the arbitration clause incorporated in a contract perishes
along with unilateral repudiation of the contract. The question for
determination was: "where one of the parties refers a dispute or
disputes to arbitration and the other party takes a plea that there
was a final settlement of claims, is the court, on an application
under Sections 9(b) and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, entitled to
enquire into the truth and validity of the averment as to whether
there was or was not a final settlement on the ground that if that
was proved, it would bar a reference to the arbitration inasmuch as
the arbitration clause itself would perish."
5.2.1 As explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar
Valley Corporation (supra), the questions of unilateral repudiation
of the rights and obligations under the contract or of a full and final
settlement of the contract are relatable to the performance or
discharge of the contract, in which eventuality, much less the
arbitration clause is put an end to, such questions fall within the
purview of the arbitration clause.
P.K. Ramaiah And Company vs Chairman & Managing Director, National ... on 1 October, 1993
(Para 7)
5.3 In State of Maharashtra vs. Navbharat Builders [1994
Supp (3) SCC 83], as well as in M/s. P.K. Ramaiah and
Company vs. Chairman & Managing Director, National Thermal
Power Corporation [1994 Supp (3) SCC 126], wherein a
construction work contract, the contractor had accepted either by
mutual agreement or voluntarily an unconditionally the payment in
settlement of the contract claim, it was held that no arbitrable
dispute survived and the contractor was not entitled to put forward
the labour escalation or any subsequent claim was not an
arbitrable dispute.
The Union Of India vs Kishorilal Gupta And Bros on 21 May, 1959
operates in respect of these purposes. It is to be observed that
such is not the case in the present set of facts.
5.4 In the Union of India vs. Kishorilal Gupta [AIR 1959 SC
1362], respondents had entered into three contracts with the
appellant, each of which had the arbitration clause. Before the
contracts could be fully executed, disputes arose between the
parties and allegations of breach was leveled. The parties
thereafter entered into three fresh contracts on different successive
dates settling the disputes on the terms contained in the new
contract, wherein the respondents agreed to pay to the appellants
certain monies in settlement of the dispute related to first two
original contracts, and by last of the new agreement, the
respondents agreed to pay to the appellant the specified amount
preferable to third original contract.