Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 43 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 16 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
M/S. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan ... vs Northern Coal Field Limited on 27 November, 2019
28. Abiding by the principle laid down in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik (supra),
the scope of this court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is only to
examine the existence of the arbitration clause, which has not been
disputed in terms in the present case.
Partha Pratim Banerjee & Anr vs Satya Narayan Jaiswal & Ors on 14 March, 2023
ordinate Bench of this Court in Partha Pratim Banerjee and Another V.
Satya Narayan Jaiswal and Others, reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Cal
603, where the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance on Vidya
Drolia's Case [ (2021) 2 SCC 1], observed that the courts can interfere
where it is evident that the claims are ex facie time-barred or, in other
words, "to cut the deadwood".
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
18. Hence, the respondents' argument that the reliefs claimed by the
petitioner are time-barred is not borne out, at least prima facie, from
the records. To say the least, the said proposition is debatable and
arguable on facts and in law, hence, best left to the arbitrator to
decide, if appointed, within the domain of Section 16 of the 1996 Act.
The above conclusion, in fact, is strengthened by the following
observation made in paragraph no. 153 of Vidya Drolia (supra):