Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)
M/S Esteem Projects Pvt. Limited vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 9 September, 2015
cites
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Indowind Energy Ltd vs Wescare (I) Ltd.& Anr on 27 April, 2010
15. The Supreme Court had already held that the Judge while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, is to satisfy himself on the existence of the
arbitration agreement between the litigating parties. However there is no scope for
further examination about whether a claim falls within the arbitration clause and this
should be left to be decided by the arbitrator. When the decisions of National Insurance
Company Limited (Supra), Indowind Energy Limited (Supra) and in SPS Engineering
Limited (Supra) are applied here, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the
point raised by the owner should be dealt by the appointed arbitrator as otherwise, this
Court will traverse beyond its permissible jurisdiction.
Indian Oil Corp.Ltd vs M/S Sps Engineering Ltd on 3 February, 2011
15. The Supreme Court had already held that the Judge while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, is to satisfy himself on the existence of the
arbitration agreement between the litigating parties. However there is no scope for
further examination about whether a claim falls within the arbitration clause and this
should be left to be decided by the arbitrator. When the decisions of National Insurance
Company Limited (Supra), Indowind Energy Limited (Supra) and in SPS Engineering
Limited (Supra) are applied here, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the
point raised by the owner should be dealt by the appointed arbitrator as otherwise, this
Court will traverse beyond its permissible jurisdiction.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Boghara Polyfab Pvt.Ltd on 18 September, 2008
15. The Supreme Court had already held that the Judge while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, is to satisfy himself on the existence of the
arbitration agreement between the litigating parties. However there is no scope for
further examination about whether a claim falls within the arbitration clause and this
should be left to be decided by the arbitrator. When the decisions of National Insurance
Company Limited (Supra), Indowind Energy Limited (Supra) and in SPS Engineering
Limited (Supra) are applied here, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the
point raised by the owner should be dealt by the appointed arbitrator as otherwise, this
Court will traverse beyond its permissible jurisdiction.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Companies Act, 1956
Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals ... vs M/S G.R Engineering Work Ltd on 29 January, 2015
14. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the owner submits that in
this proceeding itself, the Court must decide whether the claim for additional work made
by the contractor gives rise to an arbitrable dispute, in the context of the Arbitration
clause. The learned counsel relies on Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochamicals Ltd. vs.
Arb. Petition No.14/2014 Page 4 of 5
G.R. Engineering Works Ltd. reported in 2015 (3) Arb. LR 395 (Gauhati) to argue that
before an arbitrator is appointed, the Court must determine whether the dispute falls
within the terms of the Arbitration clause. The cited judgment was rendered in a
proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, where the Arbitral award was
challenged in the High Court and in that context, this Court held that when the Arbitral
award deals with a dispute not coming within the purview of arbitration, it is a
jurisdictional error, which is rectifiable in a proceeding under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act. Therefore this decision in my view, does not support the owner's
contentions.
1