Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.27 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 32 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Orient Transport Co. Gulabra And ... vs Jaya Bharat Credit And Investment Co., ... on 7 September, 1987
On consideration of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for the parties, I find that the decision of the Supreme Court in Orient Transport Co. v. Jaya Bharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd., , is applicable to the facts of the present case. However, since the petitioner has sought for a decision of this court on the issue of applicability of the arbitration agreement to it vide relief (d) of the plaint and since lengthy arguments have been advanced by the parties relating to the validity of the agreements themselves containing arbitration agreement, I consider it to be appropriate to decide the said issue raised herein. This issue stands answered accordingly.
The State Of Bombay vs Adamjee Hajee Dawood And Co. on 1 March, 1951
Referring to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Adamjee Hajee Dawood and Co., , the Supreme Court approved the conclusion of the Calcutta High Court that section 32 of the Act does not contemplate the case of a suit challenging the validity of a contract merely because it contains an arbitration clause. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that unless he seeks to challenge the parent agreement he could not have challenged the arbitration agreement, in my considered opinion is without any merit. The existence and validity of an arbitration agreement could be challenged independently without there being any challenge made to the parent agreement namely, the contract agreement itself. The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments was all along that the entire contract agreement is invalid in view of the fact that the same was not entered into by a person authorised in accordance with law and that the same has been entered into on behalf of both the companies by the same person, which is not permissible in law. Therefore, there is no independent challenge to the arbitration agreement in the present suit, but the entire agreement as a whole has been challenged mainly on the aforesaid two counts.
Section 46 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Narayandas Shreeram Somani vs The Sangli Bank Ltd.(With Connected ... on 15 March, 1965
In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Narayandas Shreeram Somani v. Sangli Bank Ltd. . It is held in that decision that even in case of irregularity of a decision/resolution of the company, the same could be avoided by the company, but instead of avoiding it if the company waives the irregularity and affirms the contract, the same would be valid and binding. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act and submitted that on a harmonious reading of sections 10 and 11 of the Indian Contract Act and section 46 of the Companies Act, it is clear that no agreement is enforceable in law against a company which is entered into on its behalf by an agent, i.e., the director, who does not have any authority. As has been held above a director has the company's authority to enter into and execute a contract like the lease agreements and also in view of the ratification and waiver on the part of the petitioner no challenge could be made to the action of Shri M.C. Aggarwal in executing the lease agreements on behalf of the petitioner company.