Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)Smt.Kalpana Kothari Appellant vs Smt.Sudha Yadav & Ors. Respondents on 31 October, 2001
18. Shri Darda, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant, relying upon the provisions of section 8(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 contended that when the issue is pending before the judicial authority, the Court is not required to refer the parties to arbitration and the applicant No. 1 on its own can move the arbitrator since as per the said provision when the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. For this he placed reliance on a decision in Smt. Kalpana Kothari v. Smt. Sudha Yadav and Ors. . I have gone through the said decision. Even in this case, the Apex Court while considering the scope of section 34 of the old Arbitration Act, 1940 and section 8 of the new Arbitration Act, 1996 observed that in the new 1996 Act there is no provision corresponding to section 34 of the old 1940 Act and section 8 of new 1996 Act mandates that the judicial authority before which an action has been brought in respect of a matter which is the subject matter of arbitration agreement shall refer the parties to arbitration if a party to such an agreement applies not later than when submitting his first statement. In the instant case, during the pendency of the Regular Civil Suit filed by the non-applicant the applicant No. 1 placed a copy of hire purchase agreement on record wherein there is a clause No. (V) which indicates that in case of any dispute arising under the said agreement the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator at the option of the owner. The said application was filed by the applicant No. 1 before submitting his first statement. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for non-applicant it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court to refer the parties to the arbitration but unfortunately this has not been done.
P. Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors vs P.V.G. Raju (Died ) & Ors on 28 March, 2000
16. Now, In a decision in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Ors. v. P. V. G. Raju (died) and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1886, the Apex Court has laid down the conditions which are required to be satisfied as per Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 before the Court exercises its power to refer the parties to arbitration. The said conditions are :--(1) there is an arbitration agreement; (2) a party to the agreement brings an action in the Court against the other party; (3) subject matter of the action is same as the subject matter of the arbitration agreement; (4) the other party moves the Court for retiring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute.
Punjab State Co-Operative Supply And ... vs Shiv Rice And General Mills And Anr. on 11 July, 2000
19. Further, in a decision in Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited v. Shiv Rice and General Mills reported in 2001(1) Arb. LR 476, the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court observed in paragraph 10 of the said judgment that section 8(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 contemplates a situation where the matter may be pending before the Court and still the arbitration may be commenced or continued and arbitral award made. Thus, even if civil suit is pending in civil Court, yet the matter could be referred to the arbitrator. In this view of the case and having regard to the fact that the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are mandatory, I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. vs Parmeshwar Mittal & Others on 1 August, 1997
In this regard, a reference can be made to a decision of this Court in Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Parmeshwar Mittal and Ors. reported in 1997(3) Mh.LJ. 863 = AIR 1998 Bombay 118 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants, wherein while considering the scope of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, this Court took similar view and held that even if the allegations of fabrication of record were made, the parties can be referred to arbitration.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Jivan Service Center vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 7 October, 1998
rep. by its Executive Director, City Centre Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 reported in 2001(1) Arb. LR 263 (Madras), the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court held that the provisions of section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 are mandatory and when the conditions are satisfied the Court shall refer the parties to the arbitration. Similar view has been taken by this Court in a case in Jivan Service Centre vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in 1999(2) Arb.
1