Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.28 seconds)
Nod Bearings Pvt Ltd vs M/S. Bhairav Bearing Corporation on 7 February, 2019 cites

Coats Viyella India Ltd. vs India Cement Ltd. And Anr. on 10 February, 2000

(d), 10, 11(f) and 13 thereof), the arbitrator held that a holistic reading of the agreement did not show that the Petitioner was merely acting as an agent of KBIL, whilst entering into the dealership agreement with the Respondent. The arbitrator relied on the case of Coats Viyella India Ltd Vs. India Cement Ltd6 in this behalf. In Coats Viyella India Ltd., the Supreme Court, after considering the agreement as a whole, had held that under the agreement, a privity of contract of the appellant was only with the respondent and there was no liability on the other party, who was 3 (1972) Bom L.R. 368 4 AIR 1999 Bom 401 5 (2017) 236 DLT 549 6 2000 9 SCC 376 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 10:32:10 ::: Chittewan 6/13 908. ARBPs 500-16 & 680-16.doc claimed to be the principal, to make payment to the appellant; the agreement was on a principal to principal basis between the appellant and the respondent, the rights and liabilities of the appellant arising only under the agreement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Sudhir Gopi vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 16 May, 2017

In Sudhir Gopi Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University7, Delhi High Court has held that an arbitral tribunal has no power to lift the corporate veil. Only a court has a power to lift the corporate veil of a company if a strong case is made out. The mere fact that a party is an alter ego of another would not predicate an agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration by that party under an arbitration agreement of the other. Corporate veil cannot by that reason alone be lifted 7 2017 SSC OnLine Del 8345 ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 10:32:10 ::: Chittewan 12/13 908. ARBPs 500-16 & 680-16.doc so as to make a party, who was not party to an arbitration agreement, a party to the reference. So also, there is no case of fraud or other special circumstance of the kind referred to above in the present case so as to lift the corporate veil and find out who the real party was with a view to enforce the liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 13 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Prem Nath Motors Ltd vs Anurag Mittal on 14 November, 2008

8 Coming now to the purported breach of the dealership agreement on the part of the Petitioner for non-supply of bearings on time, the arbitrator, on construction of the agreement (clause 5), held that the Respondent was required to place an order with the Petitioner; such order was infact placed by the Respondent; but the Petitioner could not make the bearings available within the time stipulated under the purchase order. The arbitrator observed that since bearings could not be made available within time, the Petitioner not only wrote to the Office of the Controller of Stores of Central Railways for extension of time but undertook to deliver the bearings in terms of the purchase order by October 2011 and requested the Controller not to purchase the required bearings from any other stores, but from the Respondent alone. The arbitrator observed that in view of this assurance of the Petitioner, Central Railways had granted extension of time to the Respondent for delivery of goods. The arbitrator held that ::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2019 10:32:10 ::: Chittewan 9/13 908. ARBPs 500-16 & 680-16.doc admittedly, the Petitioner was unable to live upto its commitment and delivery could not be effected within even the extended time, and that led to Central Railways formally canceling the purchase order and forfeiting the security deposit of the Respondent and calling upon it to pay a sum named in its termination letter. The arbitrator held that this chain of events showed that the cancellation of the purchase order as also forfeiture of money and liability to pay the amount referred to above incurred by the Respondent, were a direct result of the Petitioner's failure to supply the bearings in time in terms of the purchase order as committed and undertaken under the terms of the dealership agreement read with the acceptance of the purchase order. The arbitrator, in the premises, accepted the legitimacy of the debit note raised by the Respondent for loss of actual principal amount of tender cost and forfeiture of security deposit. No fault can be found with either the assessment of the learned arbitrator in this behalf or the conclusion arrived at by him on the basis of such assessment. The arbitrator's view on this aspect is a possible view. The award in this behalf is supported by evidence. It cannot be termed as an award based on no evidence. The view expressed by the arbitrator cannot be said to be a view which no fair or judiciously minded person would take or a view which would shock the conscience of the court. In the premises, no interference is warranted with this part of the award under Section 34 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1