Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.83 seconds)Section 62 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
International Amusement Limited vs India Trade Promotion Organization & ... on 17 December, 2014
4. Though such contention is put forth I am unable to
accede to the same inasmuch as rightly pointed out,
Clause 34 in any event would not arise in the instant
case. Insofar as Clause 20(h) is concerned, it is not in
the nature of an arbitration clause but at best the
Internal Conciliation Mechanism wherein the petitioner
may raise his grievance to seek resolution, before
availing the remedy in accordance with law. On the
aspect as to whether the Clause as referred to should
be considered as an arbitration clause or not, a detailed
discussion is not necessary inasmuch as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of International Amusement
Ltd., Vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation reported in
(2015) 12 SCC 677 has considered an analogous clause
and has arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be
construed as an Arbitration clause governing the
parties. Hence, the prayer to appoint an Arbitrator does
not arise.
The Union Of India vs Kishorilal Gupta And Bros on 21 May, 1959
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the
provisions of Section 62 of the Contract Act in the case of
THE UNION OF INDIA v. KISHORILAL GUPTA AND BROS
reported in AIR 1959 SC 1362, wherein at paragraphs 6 &
10 it is held as under:
Section 39 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Indian Companies Act, 1913
Dadri Cement Company And Anr. vs Bird & Co. (P) Ltd. on 22 November, 1973
27. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of
M/S. DADRI CEMENT CO. AND ANOTHER v. M/S. BIRD
AND CO. PVT., LTD reported in AIR 1974 DELHI 223 at
paragraph No.10 held as under: