Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Zonal Manager, Central Bank Of India vs M/S. Devi Ispat Ltd & Ors on 30 July, 2010
In the said decision the issue arose was for the return of title deeds deposited in the bank after the settlement of accounts furnished by the bank in full. Therefore the facts were not in dispute.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Empire Jute Co. Ltd. And Ors vs The Jute Corporation Of India Ltd. And ... on 12 October, 2007
(b) In (2007) 14 SCC 680 : (2007) 4 ALR 74 (SC) (Empire Jute Company Limited v. Jute Corporation of India Limited) in paragraph 18 it is held thus,
"18. The power of judicial review vested in the superior courts undoubtedly has wide amplitude but the same should not be exercised when there exists an arbitration clause. The Division Bench of the High Court took recourse to the arbitration agreement in regard to one part of the dispute but proceeded to determine the other part itself. It could have refused to exercise its jurisdiction leaving the parties to avail their own remedies under the agreement but if it was of the opinion that the dispute between the parties being covered by the arbitration clause should be referred to arbitration, it should not have proceeded to determine a part of the dispute itself."
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
(e) In AIR 1960 SC 588 : (1960) 2 SCR 793 ((M/s.Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd v. Union of India) in paragraph 21 doctrine of frustration was considered, which reads thus,
"21. Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act provides that:
Bisra Stone Lime Company Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs Orissa State Electricity Board & Anr on 21 October, 1975
(f) In (1976) 2 SCC 167 (Bisra Lime Stone Co. v. Orissa State Electricity Board) the Supreme court in paragraph 24 held that when there is arbitration, the parties should go for arbitration.
Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011
4. Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners in most of the writ petitions reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and submitted that the contracts entered into between the respective petitioners and Cotton Corporation of India are unworkable due to three reasons viz., frequent power cut, closure of several Units in Tiruppur, and ban on exports, which were never accepted by the petitioners while signing the contract and the petitioners approached the respondents for taking effective steps for not lifting the cotton bales and give them fresh lease of life and the same having not been considered. The facts in these cases are not very much in dispute and hence this Court can entertain the writ petitions, even though there is an alternate remedy of moving for arbitration. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 (Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd.) in support of his contentions, particularly stating that presence of arbitration clause is not a bar to invoke writ jurisdiction when injustice is caused and rule of law is violated.