Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.42 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Rashid Raza vs Sadaf Akhtar on 4 September, 2019
In a recent judgment reported as Rashid Raza [Rashid Raza v.
Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] , this
Court referred to Sikri, J.'s judgment in Ayyasamy [A. Ayyasamy v. A.
Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 79] and
then held : (Rashid Raza case [Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019)
8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] , SCC p. 712, para 4)
“4. The principles of law laid down in this appeal make a distinction
between serious allegations of forgery/fabrication in support of the
plea of fraud as opposed to “simple allegations”. Two working tests
laid down in para 25 are : (1) does this plea permeate the entire
contract and above all, the agreement of arbitration, rendering it
void, or (2) whether the allegations of fraud touch upon the internal
affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public
domain.”
Article 31 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd vs M/S Aksh Optifibre Ltd., & Anr on 12 August, 2005
In Shin-Etsu [Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre
Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234] , this Court was called upon to determine
the nature of adjudication contemplated by unamended Section 45
29/43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:46:48 pm )
A.No.2562 of 2025
of the Arbitration Act when the objection with regards to the
arbitration agreement being “null and void, inoperative or
incapable of being performed” is raised before a judicial authority.
Writing for the majority, B.N. Srikrishna, J. held that Section 45
does not require the judicial authority to give a final determination.
The Court observed that : (SCC p. 267, para 74)
“74. There are distinct advantages in veering to the view that
Section 45 does not require a final determinative finding by the
Court. First, under the Rules of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce (as in force with effect from 1-1-1998), as in
the present case, invariably the Arbitral Tribunal is vested with the
power to rule upon its own jurisdiction. Even if the Court takes the
view that the arbitral agreement is not vitiated or that it is not
invalid, inoperative or unenforceable, based upon purely a prima
facie view, nothing prevents the arbitrator from trying the issue fully
and rendering a final decision thereupon (emphasis applied). If the
arbitrator finds the agreement valid, there is no problem as the
arbitration will proceed and the award will be made. However, if the
arbitrator finds the agreement invalid, inoperative or void, this
means that the party who wanted to proceed for arbitration was
given an opportunity of proceeding to arbitration, and the
arbitrator after fully trying the issue has found that there is no
scope for arbitration. Since the arbitrator's finding would not be an
enforceable award, there is no need to take recourse to the judicial
intercession available under Section 48(1)(a) of the Act.”
A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam & Ors on 4 October, 2016
In a recent judgment reported as Rashid Raza [Rashid Raza v.
Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] , this
Court referred to Sikri, J.'s judgment in Ayyasamy [A. Ayyasamy v. A.
Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 79] and
then held : (Rashid Raza case [Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019)
8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] , SCC p. 712, para 4)
“4. The principles of law laid down in this appeal make a distinction
between serious allegations of forgery/fabrication in support of the
plea of fraud as opposed to “simple allegations”. Two working tests
laid down in para 25 are : (1) does this plea permeate the entire
contract and above all, the agreement of arbitration, rendering it
void, or (2) whether the allegations of fraud touch upon the internal
affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public
domain.”