Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Sadhu Singh And Co. vs National Projects Construction ... on 18 December, 2006 cites

Union Of India vs Surjeet Singh Atwal on 22 April, 1969

11. The first preliminary objection which had been raised is that the present petition filed under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not maintainable in this Court. Reasons to sustain the said preliminary objections are that earlier on, contractor had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by filing a petition under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that NHPC be directed to file the arbitration agreement in court and an arbitrator be appointed in terms of the said arbitration agreement. That since the appointing authority appointed Justice H.R. Khanna (retd.) as the sole arbitrator, vide order dated 19.10.1989, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the said petition filed by the contractor as having become infructuous. Relying upon the decisions reported as -Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal and 1953 SCR 878-Kumbha Mawji v. Union of India as also Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is urged that the court which was moved at the prior point of time and had taken cognizance of a claim/petition under Arbitration Act, 1940 would continue to be the court which would have exclusive jurisdiction and authority to deal with subsequent issues relating to same arbitration proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 48 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kumbha Mawji vs Union Of India on 16 April, 1953

11. The first preliminary objection which had been raised is that the present petition filed under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not maintainable in this Court. Reasons to sustain the said preliminary objections are that earlier on, contractor had approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by filing a petition under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying that NHPC be directed to file the arbitration agreement in court and an arbitrator be appointed in terms of the said arbitration agreement. That since the appointing authority appointed Justice H.R. Khanna (retd.) as the sole arbitrator, vide order dated 19.10.1989, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the said petition filed by the contractor as having become infructuous. Relying upon the decisions reported as -Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal and 1953 SCR 878-Kumbha Mawji v. Union of India as also Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is urged that the court which was moved at the prior point of time and had taken cognizance of a claim/petition under Arbitration Act, 1940 would continue to be the court which would have exclusive jurisdiction and authority to deal with subsequent issues relating to same arbitration proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 29 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document
1