Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.68 seconds)Section 4 in The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
B. Raghuveeriah, Prop., L.B. ... vs The National Small Industries ... on 24 October, 1968
Mr. Ratha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1 relies on the decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Jawahir Singh Sundar Singh, Firm v. Fleming Shaw and Co. Ltd., AIR 1937 Lahore 851 and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of B. Raghuveeriah v. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., 1970 Lab 1C 493.
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd vs Pothan Joseph on 27 April, 1960
Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand, though did not cite any direct authority on the point but relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 1156. I have carefully examined the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Patnaik, the learned counsel for the appellant and I do not find any support in the said decision for the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court case is that the power to stay a legal proceeding under Section 34 of the Act is discretionary and so a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings have been commenced cannot by relying on the arbitration agreement claim stay of legal proceedings instituted in a Court as a matter of right. However, the discretion vested in the Court must be properly and judicially exercised. Ordinarily, the Court would direct the parties to go before the tribunal of their choice and stay the legal proceedings instituted before it by one of them. It would be difficult, and it is indeed inexpedient, to lay down any inflexible rules which should govern the exercise of the said discretion. The Supreme Court of course in the said case laid down some guiding principles for grant or refusal of stay. Nowhere the Supreme Court was required to answer the question whether Section 34 would have any application after the arbitration proceeding has culminated in an award of the arbitrator.
Section 14 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Michael Golodetz And Others vs Serajuddin & Company on 12 December, 1962
(See, AIR 1963 SC 1044 (Michael Golodetz v. Serajuddin and Co.). It is universally accepted principle that the parties are prima facie bound by the arbitration clause and, therefore, normally they should be asked to keep to their bargain. It is undisputed that the Court should exercise its discretion in refusing to stay a suit in a sparing and cautious manner as a prima facie duty is cast upon Courts to act upon such an agreement.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs Yadav Engineer & Contractor on 6 August, 1982
5. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has no application since admittedly the suit was filed after the award of the arbitrators. He came to the aforesaid conclusion on an interpretation of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and relying upon the decision reported in AIR 1982 SC 1302 (Food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor).
Ram Bahadur Thakur vs Thakur Das And Ors. on 18 February, 1958
See, AIR 1958 All 522 (Ram Bahadur Thakur v. Thakur Das); AIR 1921 All 219 (Firm Sita Ram Nathmal v. Sushil Chandra Das and Co.) and (1873) 42 LJ Ch 447 (Willesford v. Watson). At the same time, the Court will have to consider the hardships involved and where the balance of convenience lies. The language of Section 34 requires that on an application being made for stay of the suit, the Court should look at the plaint and see for itself whether the arbitration clause applied to the dispute and, if it did, whether the nature of the dispute was such that the ends of justice would be met by the decision of the Court than that of a private forum. The language of the section implies that the arbitration clause should be respected and it is only when a clear case has been made out by the plaintiff and if difficult questions of law are likely to arise, such as would inevitably entail a special case being prepared and a reference made to a Court by the arbitration, that the Court should enter upon an enquiry and decision of the case. The object of the section is to enforce the arbitration agreement between the parties and to prevent any party to it committing a breach thereof. It operates by way of an injunction to prevent the plaintiff who, contrary to the arbitration agreement, institutes the suit. This being the position of law, I would now examine the correctness of the reasonings of the learned Subordinate Judge who has rejected the application for stay.