Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)

Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd vs M/S. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr on 12 August, 2005

On the other hand, Section 16 provides that the arbitral tribunal can ―rule‖ on its jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. A ―ruling‖ connotes adjudication of disputes after admitting evidence from the parties. Therefore, it is evident that the referral Court is only required to examine the existence of arbitration agreements, whereas the arbitral tribunal ought to rule on its jurisdiction, including the issues pertaining to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. A similar view was adopted by this Court in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.‖ [Emphasis supplied]
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Ntpc Ltd. vs M/S Spml Infra Ltd. on 10 April, 2023

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). ... 118. Tests like the ―eye of the needle‖ and ―ex-facie meritless‖, although try to minimise the extent of judicial interference, yet they require the referral Court to examine contested facts and appreciate prima facie evidence (however limited the scope of enquiry may be) and thus are not in conformity with the principles of modern arbitration which place 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:26.09.2025 By:PURUSHAINDRA 11:11:16 KUMAR KAURAV arbitral autonomy and judicial non-interference on the highest pedestal.‖ [Emphasis supplied]
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 13 - P S Narasimha - Full Document
1   2 Next