Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.27 seconds)
Tamilnadu Road Sector Project Ii vs M/S.Ircon International Ltd. And cites

Chloro Controls(I) P.Ltd vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc ... on 28 September, 2012

The Bench relied on the Judgement in Chloro Controls India Private Limited Vs. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and others - (2013) 1 SCC 641 and observed that though there were different agreements involving several parties however all of them were only in respect of one commercial contract and ultimately referred the parties to the four agreements to arbitration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 266 - S Kumar - Full Document

Ameet Lalchand Shah vs Rishabh Enterprises on 3 May, 2018

I had relied on the Judgement in Ameet Lalchand Shah and others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and another - (2018) 15 SCC 678 also relied upon the Judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in Alaska Export Usa Inc vs M/S. Alaska Exports - Appeal Suit No.122 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench had held that where the parties 48/52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.34 of 2020 rely upon two different documents as the basis for their commercial relationship and both documents contain independent arbitration clause, it is not possible to appoint one arbitral tribunal by choosing any one of the agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 90 - R Banumathi - Full Document

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

f) In the Judgement reported in (2017) 9 SCC 729 - Duro Felguera, S.A Vs. Gangavaram Port Limtied, the bench was concerned with five package contracts and the Corporate Guarantee executed by the appellant. The appointment of a single arbitrator under the MOU as well as the five packages and Corporate Guarantee was sought to be justified on the ground that it would avoid conflicting awards between the parties, wastage of time, resources and expenses and having a single arbitration would be consistent with prevailing law and public policy. The Bench had discussed whether the MOU was to be taken as the basis for arbitration justifying the constitution of a single arbitral Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 476 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors. on 11 May, 1999

a) In the Judgement reported in (1999) 5 SCC 651 - Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Meena Vijay Khetan and others, the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the validity of the Judgements passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in and by which three awards passed by a sole arbitrator had been confirmed by the single Judge as well as the Division Bench and the sole arbitrator had been appointed by the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The dispute was with reference to three main agreements relating to the sale of flats in a proposed building complex to the respondent therein. Each of the agreements contain an identical 29/52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.34 of 2020 arbitration clause. Apart from three main agreements, three other agreements called the interior design agreements have been entered into between the parties. These three agreements also contemplated resolution of the dispute through arbitration and the difference in these agreements was that the dispute were to be referred to the Joint arbitration of the named persons and if they failed to arbitrate then each party was required to nominate their arbitrator and the two would inturn appoint an umpire. The main agreement contemplated reference of the disputes to a single arbitrator if the parties agreed, failing which both parties were to nominate their respective arbitrator and the decision of such arbitrators was decided to be final and binding on the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 215 - M J Rao - Full Document

Cheran Propertiees Limited vs Kasturi And Sons Limited on 24 April, 2018

h) In the Judgement reported in (2018) 16 SCC 413 - Cheran Properties Limited Vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited and others, the appellant was not a party to the arbitration agreements however since he was claiming under one of the parties the Honourable Supreme Court ultimately held that the award should be enforced as if it were decree to the Court. The Honourable Supreme Court had stated that an effort should be made to find out the true essence of the business arrangement and ultimately to come to the conclusion as if there was an intent to bind someone who is not formally signatory but has assumed the obligations to be bound by the action of signatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 68 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Walter Bau Ag, Legal Successor, Of The ... vs Municipal Corp. Of Greater Mumbai And ... on 20 January, 2015

In the Judgement reported in (2015) 3 SCC 800 - Walter Bau A G Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 47/52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.34 of 2020 another, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that the appointment of the arbitral tribunal should clearly be as per the agreed procedure and if there is a deviation then such an appointment was clearly invalid in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 35 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next