Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr on 14 April, 2003
In paragraph 21 reference
was made to the decision in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v.
Jayesh H.Pandya and it was held that in view of the nature of
reliefs sought for with respect to the causes of action which
arose, a bifurcation of the causes of action to direct parties to
arbitration with respect to a portion of it was not permissible.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited & Anr vs M/S Verma Transport Company on 8 August, 2006
The
above decision was distinguished in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam
Ltd. v. Verma Transport Co. (supra).
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April, 2011
28. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent has
contended that as Annexures-A & B, agreements relate to lease,
it could not be the subject matter of arbitration. Reliance is
placed on the decision in Booz allen and Hamilton Inc. v.
SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Others (supra). There, in
paragraph 36, the well recognized examples of non-arbitrable
disputes are given which includes among other things, disputes
relating to "eviction or tenancy matters governed by special
statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against
eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to
C.R.P. No.604 of 2010 &
Arb. Request No.26 of 2011
-: 29 :-
grant eviction or decide the disputes". The dispute/claim in the
present case as to breach of Annexures-A & B, agreements for
lease and the liability if any, of petitioners to refund the advance
amount is not a dispute falling within the above said category.
Hence that contention has to be dismissed.
India Household And Healthcare Ltd vs Lg Household And Healthcare Ltd on 8 March, 2007
24. Another decision learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent has placed reliance is India Household and
Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household And Healthcare Ltd.
(supra). Contentions raised in that case are available in
paragraph 8, and clause (vii) states that one of the contentions
was that as some of the disputes fell outside the scope of
arbitration agreement, application under Sec.8 of the Act was
C.R.P. No.604 of 2010 &
Arb. Request No.26 of 2011
-: 25 :-
not maintainable. There, relief prayed for was not with respect
to the arbitration agreement as well.
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
406), referring to the decision in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi
([1998] 3 SCC 573) referred to the requirements for a valid
arbitration agreement as under: