Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.33 seconds)
Modi Entertainment Network And Anr. vs W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Limited on 30 January, 2002 cites

Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd vs Invest Import on 9 October, 1980

The fourth authority relied upon by Mr. Chinoy, namely, Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import lays down that when parties by contract agree to arrange for settlement of their disputes by a Judge of their choice, by procedure of arbitration voluntarily agreed upon, ordinarily the Court must hold the parties to their bargain. But the Apex Court has further gone on to say........ "However, this is not an absolute rule. Granting or refusing to grant stay is still a matter within the discretion of the Court".
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 242 - D A Desai - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

Another decision relied upon by Mr. Chagla is in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & others, . In this case the Supreme Court has observed that if there is a non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain advantage then it amounts to fraud. Mr. Chagla, in the present case at hand, drew the Court's attention to some of the correspondence between the parties which reveal that the plaintiffs were not complaining about any breach allegedly committed by the defendants, that they were accepting that, on the contrary, that there was delay on their part in making the payment as per the Schedule, and what they were asking for was only some more time to make the payment. Mr. Chagla contended that the plaintiffs had not annexed copies of this correspondence to the plaint and that non-disclosure of these material documents amounted to fraud and, therefore, no injunction should be granted staying the defendants claim filed in the Court in England.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document

V.R. Naik vs Balvant Sitaram Mahindre on 17 September, 1926

9. Mr. I.M. Chagla, Senior Counsel, for the defendants, forcefully argued that here is a case where two seasoned businessmen with their eyes open, entered into a contract choosing a particular forum, agreeing that the agreement would be governed by the English law and that they would submit to the English Court and now the plaintiffs cannot be heard to say that the forum which has been chosen by them is a wrong forum and that the claim filed in that forum should be stayed. To substantiate his arguments, Mr. Chagla relied upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1927 Bombay 135 V.R. Naik v. Balvant Sitaram Mahindre. However, the facts of this case disclose that the defendant there had entered appearance in the plaintiff's suit "without prejudice" and also made a counter-claim. Thus he had appeared unconditionally and without prejudice, completely submitting to the jurisdiction. In the present case in hand, however, the plaintiffs have entered appearance in the Court in England under protest and at the first opportunity have raised the point of jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1