Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Trimex International Fze Ltd.Dubai vs Vedanta Aluminium Limited,India on 22 January, 2010
7 The law revolving around Section 7(4)(b) of Arbitration
Act is very clear whereby exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or
other means of communication also amounts to an arbitration
agreement in writing. The parties, as recorded through the exchange
of emails, recorded the agreements thereby all the terms and
conditions of the agreement dated 1 April 2007 of the basic
arbitration agreement got extended. Therefore, the conclusion that
through these three emails, the parties have agreed and extended the
contractual obligation and in fact acted accordingly need no
interference. Having once extended the agreement in toto, any
dispute between the parties for the transaction based upon the same
required to be adjudicated on the basis of main agreement itself. The
finding, therefore, based upon the facts and the law of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd 1 and
further in Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai v. Vedanta
1 AIR 2008 SC 357
16/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2016 00:02:17 :::
dgm 17 app-407-15.sxw
Aluminium Limited, India2 support the reasons which we also find is
well within the frame work of law and the record.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.Ltd vs Western Geco International Ltd on 4 September, 2014
8 The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited v. Western Geco International Limited3 has observed as under:
M/S. Sahyadri Earthmovers vs L & T Finance Ltd on 17 December, 2012
This Court in Sahyadri Earthmovers v. L and T Finance Ltd 4 has
recorded as under with regard to the basic parameters for the
Arbitrator to follow, apart from other the following clauses are
2 (2010) 3 SCC 1
3 (2014) 9 SCC 263
4 2011 (4) Mh. L. J. 200
17/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2016 00:02:17 :::
dgm 18 app-407-15.sxw
relevant for this case :
M/S. Chebrolu Enterprises vs A.P.Backward Classes Co-Op ... on 28 October, 2015
11 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and
considering the power and scope of Appellate Court under Section 37
of Arbitration Act and we have also noted that the reason provided by
the learned Judge is well within the frame work of law and the record.
Recently, the Supreme Court in M/s.Chebrolu Enterprises v. Andhra Pradesh
Backward Class Coop.Finance Corpn Ltd in Civil Appeal No.8918/2015 on
28.10.2015 has reinforced thus "This Court or even the Appellate Court
would not look into the finding of facts unless they are perverse.". No case
is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment .