Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.42 seconds)
Magic Eye Developers Pvt Ltd. vs Green Edge Infra Pvt. Ltd & Ors. on 4 March, 2024 cites

Sanjay Mehra vs Sharad Mehra & Ors. on 10 April, 2023

In Sanjay Mehra v. Sharad Mehra, (supra) the plaintiff filed a suit alleging breach of terms of the Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS) and the covenants of the sale deed, executed between the parties. While the MOFS incorporated an arbitration clause, the sale deed notably lacked such a clause. In response to the suit, the defendants filed an application seeking a referral of the parties to arbitration, based upon the arbitration clause contained within the MOFS. The plaintiff objected to this application on the ground that the sale deed is a self-contained agreement, makes no reference to MOFS, superseded all prior agreements between the parties, and therefore the disputes arising therefrom cannot be referred to arbitration. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's objections, arriving at the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed in furtherance of and inextricably linked to the MOFS, and referred the parties to arbitration. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

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

81. The Court held as under: (Meena Vijay Khetan case, SCC pp. 667-68, para 30) "30. If there is a situation where there are disputes and differences in connection with the main agreement and also disputes in regard to 'other matters' 'connected' with the subject-matter of the main agreement then in such a situation, in our view, we are governed by the general arbitration Clause 39 of the main agreement under which disputes under the main agreement and disputes connected therewith can be referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal. This Clause 39 no doubt does not refer to any named arbitrators. So far as Clause 5 of the Interior Design Agreement is concerned, it refers to disputes and differences arising from that agreement which can be referred to named arbitrators and the said Clause 5, in our opinion, comes into play only in a situation where there are no disputes and differences in relation to the main agreement and the disputes and differences are solely confined to the Interior Design Agreement. That, in our view, is the true intention of the parties and that is the only way by which the general arbitration provision in Clause 39 of the main agreement and the arbitration provision for a named arbitrator contained in Clause 5 of the Interior Design Agreement can be harmonised or reconciled. Therefore, in a case like the present where the disputes and differences cover the main agreement as well as the Interior Design Agreement,--(that there are disputes arising under the main agreement and the Interior Design Agreement is not in dispute)--it is the general arbitration Clause 39 in the main agreement that governs because the questions arise also in regard to disputes relating to the overlapping items in the schedule to the main agreement and the Interior Design Agreement, as detailed earlier. There cannot be conflicting awards in regard to items which overlap in the two agreements. Such a situation was never contemplated by the parties. The intention of the parties when they incorporated Clause 39 in the main agreement and Clause 5 in the Interior Design Agreement was that the former clause was to apply to situations when there were disputes arising under both agreements and the latter was to apply to a situation where there were no disputes or differences arising under the main contract but the disputes and differences were confined only to the Interior Design Agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 215 - M J Rao - Full Document
1   2 Next