Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.51 seconds)
Himachal Sorang Power Private Limited & ... vs Ncc Infrastructure Holdings Limited on 16 March, 2019 cites

In Re: Kelly And Henderson P. Ltd., L. Jai ... vs Kelly And Henderson Pvt. Ltd. on 19 March, 1979

41. The principle of Henderson v Henderson applies typically when a litigant in court proceedings complains about matters that could and should have been raised in earlier litigation. During and after the hearing before me there emerged an issue between the parties about whether MTSF‟s money laundering complaint could have been determined in the First Option Agreement Arbitration. Mr Flynn submitted that it was only by agreement between the parties that the Tribunal took it upon itself to determine the SPA issue and it did not CS (COMM) 12/2019 Pg. 36 of 50 encompass the money laundering complaint: that complaint could not have been determined in the First Option Agreement Arbitration unless both parties and the Tribunal had so agreed. Nomihold argued that MTSF knew before the SPA Arbitration was brought the evidential basis for its money laundering complaint and could have raised it, had it wished to do so, in the SPA Arbitration from the start; that the First Option Arbitration included all disputes between the parties about whether the SPA was invalid and not performed; and that, had MTSF raised the money laundering complaint, the Tribunal would certainly have decided it. I do not need to decide this difference, I do not have all relevant material about any agreement between the parties that led to the Tribunal assuming the burden of deciding the SPA Issue, and in view of my decisions on the applications, I do not comment upon the merits of it: it might fall to be determined in the New Arbitrations and I should not trample upon such questions.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 40 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Mcdonald’S India Private Limited vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors on 21 July, 2016

e) Sonell Clocks and Gifts Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 784; f) Dolphin Drilling Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 267; g) Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamlal Kumar Sen and Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 644; h) Mcdonald‟s India Private Limited v. Vikram Bakshi and Ors., (2016) 232 DLT 394; CS (COMM) 12/2019 Pg. 20 of 50 i) GMR Energy Limited v. Doosan Power Systems
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 7 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Union Of India vs Vodafone Group Plc United Kingdom & Anr on 7 May, 2018

55. Mr Flynn acknowledged that there are circumstances in which the court will make an anti-arbitration injunction, but he submitted that the court will not restrain a party from having a matter arbitrated before a tribunal if there is no dispute that the parties are subject to a valid and binding arbitration agreement that a tribunal should determine a matter of that kind. He analysed the authorities relied upon by Mr Beltrami with a view to demonstrating that since the 1996 Act the court has never made an anti-arbitration injunction in these circumstances, and I accept his analysis of them. I have referred to the Sheffield United case upon which Mr Beltrami particularly relied and I accept that in that case there was a dispute about whether the parties had agreed to arbitration before the CAS.
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 4 - Manmohan - Full Document

K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998

56. The judgment of the Supreme Court in K.K. Modi's case would also not be applicable to the facts obtaining in the instant case. Observations made in paragraph 44 of this judgment, on which reliance was placed, inter alia, advert to re-agitation of issues which have already been decided. The Court, inter alia, observes that disputes which fall within the ambit of doctrine of res judicata, their re-agitation would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 56.1 The question raised is whether at this juncture it is just and convenient to injunct the 2nd Arbitration proceeding by labeling it as an abuse of process, which clearly is a mixed question of law and fact and would require trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 573 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next