Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)Rungta Sons Private Ltd. vs Jugometal Trg. Republike And Anr. on 15 January, 1959
A new contract comes into being. Hence an arbitration clause in the old contract will not apply to the new contract. In a broad sense, every modification brings about certain changes in the rights and obligations of the parties. If this were not so, there would be no need for anu modification of the previous agreement. It was in this context that the Calcutta High Court observed in the case of Rungta Sons Pvy. Ltd. v. Jugometal Trg. Republic that it did not matter that the modifications conferred some new rights and imposed some new liabilities and the arbitration clause in the previous agreement would continued to govern the modified agreement. What requires to be considered is whether the changes that have been brought about are substantially of such a nature as would amount to a new contract between the parties. As mentioned earlier, in the present case there have been very substantial changes in the rights and obligations of the parties over a period of time that has elapsed since 1961.
Soorajmull Nagarmull vs Asiatic Trading Co. And Ors. on 20 January, 1978
9. My attention was drawn to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in the case of Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Asiatic Trading Co. . In that case the court held that where the original contract for sale of goods contained provision for arbitration in wide terms in respect of all disputes arising out of or in relation to such contract and there was no substitution of the original contract by a new contract, but there was only modification of the original contract in respect of delivery clause bu mutual consent, the arbitration agreement and all other clauses except delivery were enforceable in law. On the fact of the case the court came to the conclusion that an alteration in the delivery clause could be considered as only a minor modification of the original agreement and therefore the arbitration clause continued to govern the disputes of the parties.
Ramdas Dwarkadas vs The Orient Pictures on 1 April, 1942
As against this, in a decision of this High Court in the case of Ramdas Dwarkadas v. Orient Pictures reported in AIR 1942 Rom 332 Blackwell J. held that when the agreement materially affects and alters the rights and liabilities under the original agreement and imposes liabilities and confers rights upon the parties which are not to be found in the original agreement at all, the arbitration clause indoor the said agreement can have no application to the mew right and liabilities. In the light of these authorities the following proposition emerges. If the subsequent agreement creates new rights and liabilities which can be considered as a new agreement between the parties then the arbitration clause under the old agreement will not apple to such new rights and anew liabilities. If, on the other hand the subsequent carnations are a minor modification of the original agreement, the other clauses of the old agreement continue to govern the parties including the arbitration clause. In other words, if the alterations substantial affect the essential terms and conditions of the original contract, the alternation cannot be looked upon merely as an amendment of the old contract.
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs Yadav Engineer & Contractor on 6 August, 1982
In the case of food Corporation of India v. Yadav Engineer and Contractor reported in AIR 1982 SC 1002 the Supreme Court has held that the expression "taking any other steps in the proceedings" should be given a narrow meaning .the step must be taken in the main preceding of the suit and it must be such a step as would clearly and unambiguously manifest the intention to waive the benefit of the arbitration agreement and to acquiesce in the proceedings . In my view, appealing at the stage of directions would not amount in the case of step in the proceedings. In the case of Nuruddin Abdulhusein v. 1950 Ahmed Abdul Jalji , Tendolkar J. held that the filing of an unconditional appearance in court is not step in the proceedings because such an act is incumbent upon the defendant by virtue of Rule 117 of the High court Rules for preventing the suit from being set down as being undefended. It is equally possible that if the defendant does not appear at the time when the defections are given, the plaintiff would the get the suit placed on board for being heard expert. Under form 9prescribedd under rule 69 of the High court Rules on the Original side, the writ of summons which is seven on the defendant requires the defendant to file in court an appearance in person or a vakalatnaama and a written statement in his defense and requires him to serve a copy of the written statement on the plaintiff within 12 weeks from the service of the summons upon him . the write of summons states that the suit will be placed for directions on the board of the Judge in chambers on the day which is mention in the writ of summons and it says that if the defendant fails to appear in person or fdile a vakalatnama and written statement as directed above or if he fails to appear before the Judge on the day mentioned, the suit may be ordered to be set down on board on the same day or any subsequent day as undefined . thus if the defendant fails to appear in court on the day when the suit is placed on board for directions, an expert decree is liable to be passed against the defendant. In view of his provision , the appeancee of the defendants at the time when the suit was placed on board for directions cannot be considered as a step in the main suit. It does not unequivocally express an intention to proceed with the suit. Therefore there is no substance in this contention of the pontiffs.
1