Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
8. As regards the contention that the claims of the petitioner are
barred by limitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Vidya Drolia v. Durga
Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, held that a request for arbitration
should not be rejected, if there is an arbitration agreement between the
parties, unless the claims are manifestly non-arbitrable and that the power to
reject should be exercised for the limited purpose of removing deadwood.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs M/S Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. on 10 March, 2021
In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Nortel Networks India Private
Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a claim
which is ex facie barred by limitation may be rejected but not otherwise. In
paragraph 47 thereof, it was held as under:-
Section 21 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Vishram Varu And Co. vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2022
9. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishram Varu & Co. v. Union of India,
represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata,
2022 SCC Online SC 487, particularly paragraphs 7 and 11 thereof, to
contend that the present claims are ex facie barred by limitation. In that
case, the arbitration clause was invoked about 32 years after the relevant
work was completed. In those facts and circumstances, the request for
constitution of an arbitral tribunal was rejected. In this case, the MOU
provides for the payment of a sum of Rs.6,95,00,000/- to the petitioner in
installments. The payment of each installment is made conditional on the
fulfillment of the obligations specified therein. While the petitioner asserts
that he fulfilled the obligations specified therein, the first respondent
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.363 of 2022
refutes such contention and claims that the petitioner failed to fulfill the
obligations and is, consequently, liable to refund the amounts received
under the MOU. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the
claims are ex facie barred by limitation.
1