Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Corn Products Company (India) Limited vs Ayaz Ghadiya And Another on 8 October, 1996 cites

India Hosiery Works vs Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd. on 6 February, 1953

In view of fact that the arbitration clauses contained in the said Agreements do not provide for the number of arbitrators, as aforesaid, the reference was intended to a sole arbitrator whose appointment was to be made with the concurrence of the parties. Section 8 of the Act does provide that if the other party who is called upon the concur in the appointment of the arbitrator does not concur in the appointment within 15 days after service of the notice of the party appointing the arbitrator, the court may, on the application of the party who gave the notice and after giving the other party an opportunity of being heard, appoint an arbitrator who shall have like power to act in the reference and make an award as if he had been appointed by consent of the parties. Since on the Petitioners refusing to concur in the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as the sole arbitrator, the 1st Respondent did not apply to the court for appointment of an arbitrator, the appointment of the 2nd Respondent as the sole arbitrator in the facts of the case, is invalid and as such, the 2nd Respondent has no right to enter upon the reference. Similar view taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of India Hosiery Works v. Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd. has been considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. National Metal Craft Delhi (supra). Though Mr. Tulzapurkar has submitted that all the alleged claims to be referred to arbitration by the 1st Respondent were settled by accord and satisfaction and nothing survived for being referred to arbitration, it is not possible to conclude that all the claims intended to be referred to arbitration by the 1st Respondent were settled in the meeting half on 11th July, 1989 and the said Agreements stood discharged.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Shri Vallabh Pitte vs Narsingdas Govindram Kalani on 4 September, 1962

11. Mr. Simhan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent, submitted that the Petition is misconceived and as such, not maintainable since, in the submission of the learned counsel, Section 33 of the Act contains procedural provisions and does not permit party to have substantial declaration. The submission made by the learned counsel is devoid of any merit since under Section 33 of the Act any party to an arbitration agreement desiring to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or to have the effect thereof determined can apply to the Court and the Court is to decide the question on affidavits. The Division Bench of our Court in the case of M/s. Shree Vallabh Pitte v. Narsingdas Govindram Kalani has held that where there is a dispute as to the existence of a contract of arbitration, the parties may choose to adopt one or the other courses mentioned in paragraph 15 of the judgment and one of such courses mentioned is that party who denies the existence of the arbitration agreement may, if he chooses, approach the Court under Section 33 of the Act and have it declared that there is in fact no arbitration agreement in existence and obtain stay of the proceedings of the arbitration. Hence, in my view, the Petition is maintainable.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1