Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974
Shri A.B. Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, contends that for entertaining and application
under Section 41(b) read with the Second Schedule, it is not
a condition that the arbitration proceedings should be
pending through the intervention of the Court. Independently
thereof, when arbitration proceedings were pending between
the parties in respect of the claim or counter-claim and
when the respondent sough to adjust the same with the
amounts due from other contracts, the Court would, in the
circumstances, intervene and restrain the respondents from
adjusting the same as a counter-claim. Otherwise, the
arbitration proceeding would be nullified. He placed strong
reliance on the judgment of a two Judge Bench of this Court
in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry [(1974) 3 SCR 556].
The question is no longer res integra.
Kamaluddin Ansari & Co vs Union Of India on 12 August, 1983
In fact, the ratio
therein which the learned counsel tried to propound, was not
approved and the said decision was expressly overruled in
Kamaluddin's case (supra).
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
1