Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 45 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
17. It was urged that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained because
of the learned single Judge‟s reasoning that the suit was based upon a cause
of action that was not arbitrable; apart from the fact that there was one
transaction but recorded in several agreements, the essential nature of the
claim was for the return of money that could be proceeded with and the
other matters relating to the three agreements for procuring supply etc. left
for decision in arbitration. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
decision in Chloro Controls (supra) and the observations in the decision
with respect to Sukanya Holdings (supra) were in the context of the un-
amended Section 45 of the Act. He submitted that with the 2015
amendments to the Act, there is a drastic change in the phraseology as both
Sections 8 and 45 are identically phrased. Learned senior counsel submitted
that when two provisions use identical expressions or words in a statute,
they have to be interpreted in a like and identical manner.
A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam & Ors on 4 October, 2016
16. It was argued by Mr. Singh that mere iteration of the expression
"serious fraud" in the facts of the present case did not mean that there
actually were such allegations. Relying upon the observations of the
concurring judgment in A.Ayyasamy (supra), learned senior counsel stressed
that the burden to establish serious fraud was heavy and the plaintiffs had
not discharged it in the facts of this case.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Chloro Controls(I) P.Ltd vs Severn Trent Water Purification Inc ... on 28 September, 2012
17. It was urged that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained because
of the learned single Judge‟s reasoning that the suit was based upon a cause
of action that was not arbitrable; apart from the fact that there was one
transaction but recorded in several agreements, the essential nature of the
claim was for the return of money that could be proceeded with and the
other matters relating to the three agreements for procuring supply etc. left
for decision in arbitration. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
decision in Chloro Controls (supra) and the observations in the decision
with respect to Sukanya Holdings (supra) were in the context of the un-
amended Section 45 of the Act. He submitted that with the 2015
amendments to the Act, there is a drastic change in the phraseology as both
Sections 8 and 45 are identically phrased. Learned senior counsel submitted
that when two provisions use identical expressions or words in a statute,
they have to be interpreted in a like and identical manner.