Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 32 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Vadilal Chatrabhuj Gandhi vs Thakorelal Chimanlal Munshaw And Ors. on 7 April, 1953
In the case of
Vadilal Chatrabhuj Gandhi v. Thakorelal Chimanlal Munshaw
[55 Bombay Law Reporter 629] the emphasis was on judicial
enquiry and determination as indicative of an arbitration
agreement as against an expert opinion. The test of
preventing disputes or deciding disputes was also resorted
to for the purpose of considering whether the agreement was
a reference to arbitration or not. In that case, the
agreement provided that the parties had agreed to enter into
a compromise for payment of a sum up to, but not exceeding,
Rs. 20 lacs, "which shall be borne and paid by the parties
in such proportions or manner as Sir Jamshedji B.Kanga
shall, in his absolute discretion, decide as a valuer and
not as an arbitrator after giving each of us summary
hearing." The court said that the mere fact that a judicial
enquiry had been held is not sufficient to make the ultimate
decision a judicial decision. The court held that Sir
Jamshedji Kanga had not to decide upon the evidence led
before him. He had to decide in his absolute discretion.
There was not to be judicial enquiry worked out a judicial
manner. Hence this was not an arbitration.
State Of West Bengal And Others vs Haripada Santra on 14 September, 1989
In the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Haripada
Santra [AIR 1990 Calcutta 83], the agreement the
Superintending Engineer of the Circle shall be final The
court relied upon the fact that the reference was to
disputes between the parties on which a decision was
required to be given by the Super intending Engineer.
Obviously, such a decision could b e arrived at b y the
Superintending Engineer only when the dispute was referred
to him by either party for decision. He was also required to
act judicially and decide the disputes after hearing both
parties and after considering the material before him. It
was, therefore, an arbitration agreement.
Jammu & Kashmir State Forest ... vs Abdul Karim Wani on 31 March, 1989
In the case of Jammu and Kashmir State Forest
Corporation v. Abdul Karim Wani & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 701
para 24], this Court considered the agreement as an
agreement of reference to arbitration. It has emphasised
that (1) the agreement was in writing; (2) It was a contract
at present time to refer the dispute arising out of the
present contract; and (3) There was a valid agreement to
refer the dispute to arbitration of the Managing Director,
Jammu and Kashmir State Forest Corporation. The Court
observed that endeavor should always be made to find out the
intention of the parties, and that intention has to be found
out by reading the terms broadly and clearly without being
circumscribed.
M.Dayanand Reddy vs A.P. Industrial Infrastructure ... on 24 March, 1993
The decision in the case of Rukmanibai Gupta (supra)
has been followed by this Court in the case of M.Dayanand
Reddy v. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited
& Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 137 para 8], Commenting on the special
characteristics of an arbitration agreement this court h as
further observed in the above case that arbitration
agreement embodies an agreement between the parties that in
case of a dispute such dispute shall be settled by
arbitrator or umpire of their own constitution or by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the court in an appropriate
case. "It is pertinent to mention that there is a material
difference in an arbitration agreement inasmuch as in an
ordinary contract the obligation of the parties to each
other cannot, in general, be specifically enforced and
breach of such terms of contract results only in damages,
The arbitration clause, however, can b e specifically
enforced by the machinery of the Arbitration Act.........".
State Of Orissa And Anr vs Damodar Das on 15 December, 1995
The decisions in the case of State of U.P. Tipper Chand
(supra) and Rukmanibai Gupta (supra) have also been cited
with approval by this Court in the case of State of Orissa &
Anr. v. Damodar Das [(1996) 2 SCC 216]. In this case, t his
Court considered a clause in the contract which made the
decision of the Public Health Engineer, "final, conclusive
and binding in respect of all questions relating to the
meaning of specifications, drawings, instructions...... or
as to any other question claim, right, matter of thing
whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the
contract, drawings, specifications, estimates...... or
otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure
to execute the same whether arising during the progress of
the work or after the completion or the sooner determination
thereof the contract." This Court held that this was not an
arbitration clause. It did not envisage that any difference
or dispute that may arise in execution of the works should
be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator.