Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of India vs Indexport Registered And Ors on 30 April, 1992
6. Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff has relied on the decision rendered in State Bank of India v. Indexport Registered and Ors., , to buttress his argument that the Plaintiff is entitled in law to continue arbitration proceedings against one Defendant and a suit for recovery of the same amount against other Defendants. It is at once evident that this authority contemplates execution proceedings. It is in this context that the Apex Court observed that the Defendant cannot be forced to first exhaust the remedy by way of the execution of the mortgage decree alone and then proceed against the guarantor. There must be unity or commonality in the proceedings against all the Defendants.
Section 22 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
M/S Patheje Bros. Forgings & Stamping & ... vs Icici Ltd & Ors on 24 July, 2000
8. The position of the Plaintiff appears to be even worse confounded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patheja Bros. Forgings & Stamping and Anr. v. ICICI Ltd. an Ors., , wherein it has been held that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA') prohibits a suit for enforcement of the guarantees in respect of loans granted to such company, unless the consent as required by Section 22 of SICA is first obtained. Apart from other considerations which have prevailed on me to hold that the suit is not maintainable, the observations contained in this case make the position of the Plaintiff wholly indefensible. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff had argued that it is not clear whether registration has been accorded to Defendant No. 4 under Section 22(1) of SICA.
M/S.Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd vs P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd on 9 May, 2000
Learned counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd., , in which the Plaintiff has been noticed as having been so
registered. A perusal of the Written Arguments filed on behalf of Plaintiff further clarifies that this contention has lost all force because of the reversal of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Section 22 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S. Chand Chits & Finance (P) Ltd. vs M/S. Super Advertisers And Others on 8 April, 1991
11. It is not in dispute that the Arbitration Clause exists between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 4. This being the position the present suit is manifestly not maintainable because the Company, which is Defendant No. 4, has signed the Agreement containing the Arbitration Clause and is engaged in the ongoing arbitration. As against this Defendant, it cannot be subjected to different proceedings in respect of the same cause of action and/or relief. Even if this fact is ignored, I am satisfied that an Arbitration Clause exists even between the Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 who are Directors of Defendant No. 4 and have simultaneously signed both the Agreements. The fact that they had signed the Bond of Guarantee as Directors of Defendant No. 4, and not in any other capacity, cannot also be lost sight of. In this respect I am supported by the opinion expressed by P.N. Nag, J. in M/s. Chand Chits case (supra). From a reading of the decision it appears that the principal debtor in that case had not signed the Agreement of Guarantee. Even in those circumstances the principal debtor was held to have been bound by the terms of the Guarantee which contained the Arbitration Clause. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff had submitted that in the present case there was a bipartite agreement. Even if this is so it would not make the slightest difference. The present case is on a much firmer footing since there is no refusal or absence of the signatures of Defendants 1 to 3 on the first agreement containing the Arbitration Clause. The two contracts are intrinsically intertwined with each other. Accordingly, it is my view that ah Arbitration Clause exists between all the parties. Even otherwise, since the matter in dispute is the same, the Clause can be relied upon even by persons who are not privy to it. This appears to be the intendment of Section 8.
1