Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.47 seconds)

M/S Duro Felguera S.A vs M/S. Gangavaram Port Limited on 10 October, 2017

This being the position, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgment [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Art Exports (P) Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 362 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 785] , as Section 11(6-A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment in Duro Felguera, SA [Duro Felguera, SA v. Gangavaram Port Ltd. :(2017) 9 SCC 729 -- see paras 48 & 59"
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 476 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020

In a recent judgment delivered by a three-judge bench in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation MANU/SC/0939/2020 : (2021) 2 SCC 1, on the scope of power under Sections 8 and 11, it has been held that the Court must undertake a primary first review to weed out "manifestly ex facie non-existent and invalid arbitration agreements, or non-arbitrable disputes." The prima facie review at the reference stage is to cut the deadwood, where dismissal is bare faced and pellucid, and when on the facts and law, the litigation must stop at the first stage. Only when the Court is certain that no valid arbitration agreement exists, or that the subject matter is not arbitrable, that reference may be refused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 615 - S Khanna - Full Document

Ncc Limited vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 8 February, 2019

However, the Supreme Court also referred with approval a passage from the judgment of this Court in NCC Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6964, whereby the Court had explained that "unless it is in a manner of speech, a chalk and cheese situation or a black and white situation without shades of grey, the concerned court hearing the Section 11 petition should follow the more conservative course of allowing parties to have their say before the arbitral tribunal".
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 18 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 Next