Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Nimbus Communication Ltd. vs Board Of Control For Cricket In India on 2 December, 2016
104. The Division Bench of this court in case of
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited v. L & T Finance Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1005 after adverting to the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of Adhunik Steel
Ltd. (supra), judgment of the Division Bench of this
court in case of Nimbus Communications Ltd. (supra)
held that the rigors of every procedural provision of the
Code of Civil Procedure cannot be put into place to
defeat the grant of relief which would sub-serve the
paramount interests of the justice. The object of
preserving the efficacy of arbitration as an effective
form of dispute resolution must be duly fulfilled. This
would necessarily mean that in deciding an application
under Section 9, the Court would while bearing in mind
the fundamental principles underlying the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, at the same time, have the
discretion to mould the relief in appropriate cases to
secure the ends of justice and to preserve the sanctity
of the arbitral process. The Division Bench of this Court
in the said judgment did not interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing the parties
to furnish security so as to secure the claim of the
original petitioner in arbitration by applying principles of
Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …”
Valentine Maritime Ltd. vs Kreuz Subsea Pte Ltd on 26 March, 2021
In Valentine Maritime Ltd. v. Kreuz Subsea Pte. Ltd. & Anr. 7,
the High Court held :-
Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007
104. The Division Bench of this court in case of
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited v. L & T Finance Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1005 after adverting to the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of Adhunik Steel
Ltd. (supra), judgment of the Division Bench of this
court in case of Nimbus Communications Ltd. (supra)
held that the rigors of every procedural provision of the
Code of Civil Procedure cannot be put into place to
defeat the grant of relief which would sub-serve the
paramount interests of the justice. The object of
preserving the efficacy of arbitration as an effective
form of dispute resolution must be duly fulfilled. This
would necessarily mean that in deciding an application
under Section 9, the Court would while bearing in mind
the fundamental principles underlying the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, at the same time, have the
discretion to mould the relief in appropriate cases to
secure the ends of justice and to preserve the sanctity
of the arbitral process. The Division Bench of this Court
in the said judgment did not interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing the parties
to furnish security so as to secure the claim of the
original petitioner in arbitration by applying principles of
Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …”
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited vs L & T Finance Limited on 8 August, 2013
104. The Division Bench of this court in case of
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited v. L & T Finance Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1005 after adverting to the
judgment of Supreme Court in case of Adhunik Steel
Ltd. (supra), judgment of the Division Bench of this
court in case of Nimbus Communications Ltd. (supra)
held that the rigors of every procedural provision of the
Code of Civil Procedure cannot be put into place to
defeat the grant of relief which would sub-serve the
paramount interests of the justice. The object of
preserving the efficacy of arbitration as an effective
form of dispute resolution must be duly fulfilled. This
would necessarily mean that in deciding an application
under Section 9, the Court would while bearing in mind
the fundamental principles underlying the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure, at the same time, have the
discretion to mould the relief in appropriate cases to
secure the ends of justice and to preserve the sanctity
of the arbitral process. The Division Bench of this Court
in the said judgment did not interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing the parties
to furnish security so as to secure the claim of the
original petitioner in arbitration by applying principles of
Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. …”