Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.14 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Asha M. Jain vs The Canara Bank And Ors. on 15 October, 2001
It is further
contended that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Asha M.
Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841 which was overruled in Suraj
Lamp dealt with cases in which entire sale consideration was paid and
would have no application to the present case where the entire sale
consideration has not been paid.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs M/S. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums on 23 July, 2003
15. Though undoubtedly, while in the registered Agreement to Sell the
parties had agreed to mutual appointment of a sole Arbitrator and in another
agreement of the same date the parties have agreed to appoint Shri Darshan
Kumar aforesaid as sole Arbitrator but the inconsistency if any to the said
extent in my view is no ground to defeat Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
The fact remains that the parties had agreed to the arbitration of disputes
arising between them relating to the transaction of sale/purchase of the
subject flat. Whether the said arbitration is to be of Shri Darshan Kumar or
of any other Arbitrator to be mutually agreed by the parties is not in the
domain of Section 8. Under Section 8, the Court is only required to see
whether the action brought before it is subject of an arbitration clause or not
and if it is found to be so, to refer the parties to Arbitration. Reliance in this
regard can be placed on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 SCC 503 and P. Anand Gajapathi
Raju Vs. P.V.G. Raju (2000) 4 SCC 539.
P. Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors vs P.V.G. Raju (Died ) & Ors on 28 March, 2000
15. Though undoubtedly, while in the registered Agreement to Sell the
parties had agreed to mutual appointment of a sole Arbitrator and in another
agreement of the same date the parties have agreed to appoint Shri Darshan
Kumar aforesaid as sole Arbitrator but the inconsistency if any to the said
extent in my view is no ground to defeat Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
The fact remains that the parties had agreed to the arbitration of disputes
arising between them relating to the transaction of sale/purchase of the
subject flat. Whether the said arbitration is to be of Shri Darshan Kumar or
of any other Arbitrator to be mutually agreed by the parties is not in the
domain of Section 8. Under Section 8, the Court is only required to see
whether the action brought before it is subject of an arbitration clause or not
and if it is found to be so, to refer the parties to Arbitration. Reliance in this
regard can be placed on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 SCC 503 and P. Anand Gajapathi
Raju Vs. P.V.G. Raju (2000) 4 SCC 539.