Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Atul Singh & Ors vs Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors on 4 January, 2008
By this time it is now a settled law that if somebody alleges fraud in
entering into an agreement containing an arbitration clause, he should go before
the civil court for avoiding the agreement. (Atul Singh vs. Sunil Kumar Singh,
reported in 2008(2) SCC 602; India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG
Household and Healthcare Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1357). Therefore, a civil
suit challenging the purported arbitration agreement as the outcome of fraud is
maintainable and thus, no question of rejection of plaint arises. We do not feel it
15
necessary to deal with the decisions of various High Courts which are
inconsistent with the principles laid down in the above there Supreme Court
decisions.
India Household And Healthcare Ltd vs Lg Household And Healthcare Ltd on 8 March, 2007
By this time it is now a settled law that if somebody alleges fraud in
entering into an agreement containing an arbitration clause, he should go before
the civil court for avoiding the agreement. (Atul Singh vs. Sunil Kumar Singh,
reported in 2008(2) SCC 602; India Household and Healthcare Ltd. vs. LG
Household and Healthcare Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1357). Therefore, a civil
suit challenging the purported arbitration agreement as the outcome of fraud is
maintainable and thus, no question of rejection of plaint arises. We do not feel it
15
necessary to deal with the decisions of various High Courts which are
inconsistent with the principles laid down in the above there Supreme Court
decisions.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Uttar Pradesh Co-Operative Federation ... vs M/S Sunder Brothers Of Delhi on 20 April, 1966
Before dealing with the abovementioned question, we should keep in our
mind the scope of interference at the instance of an appellate court while hearing
an appeal against a discretionary order in the nature of temporary injunction,
appointment of receiver etc. It is now an established law that in such an appeal,
the appellate court generally does not interfere with the discretion exercised by
the learned Trial Court unless it appears to the appellate court that while
exercising such discretion, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly applied the
principles for grant of such discretion or unless it is established that such
discretion has been unreasonably or capriciously exercised. In deciding such an
appeal, it would not be proper for an appellate Court to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the Trial Court solely on the ground that if it considered
14
the matter at the trial stage, it might have come to a contrary conclusion. (Uttar
Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. vs. Sunder Bros. Delhi, reported in AIR
1967 SC 249).
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Manjunath Anandappa Urf. Shivappa ... vs Tammanasa & Ors on 13 March, 2003
In a subsequent case of Manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa
Hansi vs. Tammanasa and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1391, the Supreme
Court reiterated the aforesaid principles which are required to be followed while
hearing an appeal against a discretionary order by observing that "an appellate
power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is
clearly wrong. The difference is real, though fine."
1