Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.02 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Ntpc Ltd. vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd. on 10 April, 2023
For this reason, we find it
difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and
adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under
Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous
disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In
Re: Interplay (supra)."
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
For this reason, we find it
difficult to hold that the observations made in Vidya Drolia (supra) and
adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under
Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous
disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In
Re: Interplay (supra)."
The Coinage Act, 2011
M/S Sumo Technologies (P) Ltd vs M/S Comat Technologies (P) Ltd on 8 June, 2010
11. Ex-facie frivolity and dishonesty are the issues, which have
been held to be within the scope of the Arbitral Tribunal which is
equally capable of deciding upon the appreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties. While considering the aforesaid
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in the
case of Goqii Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Sokrati Technologies (P)
Ltd., however, has held that the referral Courts under Section 11
must not be misused by one party in order to force other parties to
the arbitration agreement to participate in a time-consuming and
costly arbitration process. Few instances have been delineated such
as, the adjudication of a non-existent and malafide claim through
arbitration. The Court, however, in order to balance the limited
scope of judicial interference of the referral Court with the interest
of the parties who might be constrained to participate in the
arbitration proceedings, has held that the Arbitral Tribunal
eventually may direct that the costs of the arbitration shall be borne
by the party which the Arbitral Tribunal finds to have abused the
process of law and caused unnecessary harassment to the other
parties to the arbitration.
1