Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
4. Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H.
Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 242/2023 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
10:50
Pandya & Anr, observed that section 8 is essentially an
acknowledgment of the fact that parties can waive an arbitration
agreement. Conditions under section 8 are meant to provide for
reading such waiver by conduct. When a suit is filed despite an
arbitration agreement, it is an offer by one party to terminate this
agreement. If the other party joins the suit by contesting it on
substance, it accepts such offer and the arbitration agreement
comes to an end. Section 8 provides that failure to invoke the
arbitration agreement within reasonable time shall also be deemed
to be an acceptance.
Mi2C Security Facilities Pvt Ltd vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation on 23 October, 2018
8. In fact, the respondent herein had also filed a replication to the written
statement filed by the appellant. If that be so, the learned District Judge is
right in relying upon the judgment in Mi2C Security Facilities Pvt Ltd
(supra), wherein this Court has stated as under:-
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited & Anr vs M/S Verma Transport Company on 8 August, 2006
9. This proposition of law is well settled by the Supreme Court in
the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited vs. M/S Verma
Transport Company, (2006) 7 SCC 275 wherein it held that the
expression "first statement on the substance of the dispute"
Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April, 2011
11. Even this Court in a recent pronouncement in the case of
Vikram Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) 10588/2016 decided on
January 29, 2018 has by referring to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. (supra) and this
Court in S.D.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. (supra) rejected the plea taken by
the respondent in that case on the maintainability of the writ
petition in view of the existence of an arbitration clause by holding
that the respondent having filed its statement on the dispute by way
Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 242/2023 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
10:50
of a counter affidavit to the writ petition is precluded from taking
the plea that there exist an arbitration agreement. In view of the
above, the plea of Ms. Biji Rajesh on the non-maintainability of the
petition needs to be rejected. Suffice to state, the issue needs to be
considered on merit and I accordingly proceed to examine the
same."
Vikram Bhatt vs State Of Chhattisgarh 17 ... on 9 January, 2020
11. Even this Court in a recent pronouncement in the case of
Vikram Sharma v. Union of India W.P.(C) 10588/2016 decided on
January 29, 2018 has by referring to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. (supra) and this
Court in S.D.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. (supra) rejected the plea taken by
the respondent in that case on the maintainability of the writ
petition in view of the existence of an arbitration clause by holding
that the respondent having filed its statement on the dispute by way
Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 242/2023 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
10:50
of a counter affidavit to the writ petition is precluded from taking
the plea that there exist an arbitration agreement. In view of the
above, the plea of Ms. Biji Rajesh on the non-maintainability of the
petition needs to be rejected. Suffice to state, the issue needs to be
considered on merit and I accordingly proceed to examine the
same."
1