Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Ntpc Ltd. vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd. on 10 April, 2023
(supra), 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 (supra) and
adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under
Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous
disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In
Re: Interplay (supra)."
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd vs Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. & ... on 21 January, 2020
The Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile
Distribution Private Limited (supra) and held that the agreement records
that the seat of Arbitration shall be at Delhi and thus the Delhi Courts will
have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes between the parties
M/S Devyani International Ltd. vs Siddhivinayak Builders And Developers on 27 September, 2017
In the case of Devyani International Ltd. vs. Siddhivinayak Builders
& Developers being OMP (I) (COMM) 373/2017, decided on 27.09.2017, a
Coordinate Bench of this Court was dealing with an inter-play between an
Arbitration Clause and a clause relating to "Governing Law". Relevant para
of the Arbitration Clause is as under:
Mr. Raman Deep Singh Taneja vs Crown Realtech Private Limited on 23 November, 2017
Reliance was then placed on Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited
(supra) and Ramandeep Singh Taneja (supra) and it was held that the seat of
arbitration being Delhi, the Courts at Delhi would have the territorial
jurisdiction to decide matters concerning arbitration
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPAK Signed
BISSYAN
Signing Date:16.05.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA
16:19:17 KUMAR KAURAV
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
(supra), 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 (supra) and
adopted in NTPC v. SPML (supra) that the jurisdiction of the referral
court when dealing with the issue of "accord and satisfaction" under
Section 11 extends to weeding out ex-facie non-arbitrable and frivolous
disputes would continue to apply despite the subsequent decision in In
Re: Interplay (supra)."
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Global Credit Capital Ltd. vs Krrish Realty Nirman Pvt.Ltd. on 16 May, 2018
32. The Coordinate Bench resolved the conflict between the two parts of
clause 24 by holding that where the disputes are to be adjudicated without
reference to arbitration, Courts at Delhi would have exclusive jurisdiction,
however, where they have to be resolved through arbitration, venue being at
Faridabad, Haryana, the Courts at Faridabad would have exclusive
jurisdiction. The same Bench thereafter decided a petition under Section 11
of the Act titled as Global Credit Capital Limited vs. Krrish Realty Nirman
Pvt. Ltd. being Arb. P. 123/2018, decided on 16.05.2018, where again the
issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court arose. The said case being Arb
Pet. 123/2018 was decided on 16.05.2018 and allowed. The conflict was
between the Arbitration Clause 24 as per which the venue of arbitration was
Delhi and clause 31 of the Collaboration Agreement, which provided that
"Courts at Gurgaon shall have jurisdiction of all matters concerning this
agreement". The word „venue‟ was construed by the Courts at „Seat" of
arbitration following the judgments of the Supreme Court on the said issue.