Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)Section 11 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 4 September, 2023
7. Similarly, determination of the validity of the disputes sought to be
referred to arbitration is also within the remit of the Arbitrator and beyond
the scope of jurisdiction of a referral Court under Section 11 of 1996 Act.
This position is palpably clear from the judgment in Goqii Technologies
(supra), relevant passages from which are as follows:-
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
v. Krish Spg., (2024) 12 SCC 1 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 : 2024 INSC
532] , SCC paras 117 & 128)
"117. In view of the observations made by this Court inInterplay
Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp
Act, 1899, In re [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under
A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 : 2023
INSC 1066] , it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of
appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie
existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this
reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in
Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2
SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v.
SPML Infra Ltd. [NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC
385 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 342] that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction"
Ntpc Ltd. vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd. on 10 April, 2023
v. Krish Spg., (2024) 12 SCC 1 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 : 2024 INSC
532] , SCC paras 117 & 128)
"117. In view of the observations made by this Court inInterplay
Between Arbitration Agreements under A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp
Act, 1899, In re [Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under
A&C Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 : 2023
INSC 1066] , it is clear that the scope of enquiry at the stage of
appointment of arbitrator is limited to the scrutiny of prima facie
existence of the arbitration agreement, and nothing else. For this
reason, we find it difficult to hold that the observations made in
Vidya Drolia [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2
SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] and adopted in NTPC Ltd. v.
SPML Infra Ltd. [NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC
385 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 342] that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction"
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2025 at 22:34:58
Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760
and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) a Joint Venture Company, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219 and
therefore considering that arbitral proceedings have already been prolonged,
this Court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator, to which Ms. Salwan has no
objection.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2025 at 22:34:58
Architects DPC and Another v. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760
and Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO
MCML (JV) a Joint Venture Company, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219 and
therefore considering that arbitral proceedings have already been prolonged,
this Court may appoint a Sole Arbitrator, to which Ms. Salwan has no
objection.