Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Newsprint Sales Corporation vs The Daily Pratap And Ors. on 1 September, 2006 cites

Dharma Prathishthanam vs M/S. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd on 2 November, 2004

20. As held in the report published as Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd., arbitrator under the scheme of 1940 Act is not statutory. It is a forum chosen by the consent of the parties as an alternative to resolution of disputes by the ordinary forum of courts. 2 things are therefore of essence. Firstly the decision to have the disputes settled through medium of arbitration and secondly the reference of the dispute to the arbitrator. Consent at both stages has to emerge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 54 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Ram Chandra Ram Nag Ram Rice & Oil Mills ... vs Howrah Oil Mills Ltd. And Anr. on 2 July, 1957

In the report published as Ram Chandra Ram Nag and Ram Rice and Oil Mills Ltd. v. Howrah Oil Mills Ltd., a contract note signed by the broker of the defendant who was a non-member of an association which contains a clause that disputes would be referred to arbitration in accordance with the rules of association of which supplier was a member, was held to be a binding agreement between the parties to refer the disputes to an arbitrator as per the rules of the association.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Mohanlal Chhaganlal Shah vs Bissesarlal Chirawalla on 4 October, 1945

21. The issue, whether bye laws of an association which contain an arbitration clause can form the subject matter of an arbitration agreement is no longer res integra. Where two persons are enrolled as members of an association at different point of time, but sign the enrollment forms which clearly stipulates that they would be bound by the rules and regulations of the association, it has been held that an inter se dispute between such persons i.e. members of the association has to be referred to an arbitrator as per the rules and regulations of the association if it is so provided therein. See , Mohanlal Chhaganlal Shah v. Bissesarlal Chirawalla and AIR 1939 Sind 357, Kotumal Pokardas v. Adam Haji Pir Mahomed.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Lewis W. Fernandez vs Jivatlal Partapshi And Ors. on 12 October, 1944

28. I may note that this decision has not noted the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Lewis W. Fernandez's case wherein a series of transactions wherein member had raised contract notes containing a condition that disputes under the contract would be settled through the medium of arbitration on not being protested by the non-member as not binding on him, was held as parties being ad idem evidence by conduct.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1