Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.42 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S. Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd. on 13 April, 2021
31. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the
parties chose and appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator and had also
chosen the venue as Kolkata for arbitration, the petitioner also duly
participated in the conducted arbitral proceedings before Ld. Sole
ARBT. No. 237/18 24 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
Arbitrator without any kind of objection including that of the venue
or appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Thus the parties alebit had not
mentioned about the seat or venue in the Arbitration clause/Article
of Agreement dated 16.12.2008 but both the parties have mutually
agreed for the Arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Kolkata
Accordingly, in view of above elicited law laid in the cases of (i)
BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra); (ii) Hindustan Construction
Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd & Another (supra); (iii) Indus
Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd.
(supra) and (iv) Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd.
(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the seat of arbitration
is fixed by mutual agreement to be at Kolkata, then Courts at Delhi
are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is
now vested in the Courts at Kolkata since the parties voluntarily
and mutually agreed for and participated in arbitral proceedings at
Kolkata. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions of
the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the conduct of the respondent in
filing the WS and participation in the present proceedings has
vested jurisdiction at Delhi Courts in view of the aforementioned
case law and discussion and particularly when the respondent has
been consistently disputing and contesting the jurisdiction of Delhi
Courts since filing of its reply on entering appearance in the
present matter. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view
of the foregoing discussions and mutual agreement of the parties
about conduct of arbitral proceedings at Kolkata, the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition U/s 34 of the
Arbitration Act assailing the award dated 25.03.2018 lies
exclusively with the Courts at Kolkata. The contention of Ld.
Counsel for respondent about this Court not being vested with
ARBT. No. 237/18 25 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition has
considerable force and merits in view of the forgoing discussion
and case law. Accordingly the present petition filed by the
petitioner U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Ac, 1996 for setting
aside the arbitral award dated 25.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator at Kolkata is held to be not maintainable in this Court.
The arbitral records be sent back and the file be consigned to
record room after due compliance.
Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd vs Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 19 April, 2017
31. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the
parties chose and appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator and had also
chosen the venue as Kolkata for arbitration, the petitioner also duly
participated in the conducted arbitral proceedings before Ld. Sole
ARBT. No. 237/18 24 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
Arbitrator without any kind of objection including that of the venue
or appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Thus the parties alebit had not
mentioned about the seat or venue in the Arbitration clause/Article
of Agreement dated 16.12.2008 but both the parties have mutually
agreed for the Arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Kolkata
Accordingly, in view of above elicited law laid in the cases of (i)
BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra); (ii) Hindustan Construction
Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd & Another (supra); (iii) Indus
Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd.
(supra) and (iv) Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd.
(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the seat of arbitration
is fixed by mutual agreement to be at Kolkata, then Courts at Delhi
are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is
now vested in the Courts at Kolkata since the parties voluntarily
and mutually agreed for and participated in arbitral proceedings at
Kolkata. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions of
the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the conduct of the respondent in
filing the WS and participation in the present proceedings has
vested jurisdiction at Delhi Courts in view of the aforementioned
case law and discussion and particularly when the respondent has
been consistently disputing and contesting the jurisdiction of Delhi
Courts since filing of its reply on entering appearance in the
present matter. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view
of the foregoing discussions and mutual agreement of the parties
about conduct of arbitral proceedings at Kolkata, the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition U/s 34 of the
Arbitration Act assailing the award dated 25.03.2018 lies
exclusively with the Courts at Kolkata. The contention of Ld.
Counsel for respondent about this Court not being vested with
ARBT. No. 237/18 25 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition has
considerable force and merits in view of the forgoing discussion
and case law. Accordingly the present petition filed by the
petitioner U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Ac, 1996 for setting
aside the arbitral award dated 25.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator at Kolkata is held to be not maintainable in this Court.
The arbitral records be sent back and the file be consigned to
record room after due compliance.
Bgs Sgs Soma Jv vs Nhpc Ltd. on 10 December, 2019
31. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the
parties chose and appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator and had also
chosen the venue as Kolkata for arbitration, the petitioner also duly
participated in the conducted arbitral proceedings before Ld. Sole
ARBT. No. 237/18 24 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
Arbitrator without any kind of objection including that of the venue
or appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Thus the parties alebit had not
mentioned about the seat or venue in the Arbitration clause/Article
of Agreement dated 16.12.2008 but both the parties have mutually
agreed for the Arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Kolkata
Accordingly, in view of above elicited law laid in the cases of (i)
BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra); (ii) Hindustan Construction
Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd & Another (supra); (iii) Indus
Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd.
(supra) and (iv) Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd.
(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the seat of arbitration
is fixed by mutual agreement to be at Kolkata, then Courts at Delhi
are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is
now vested in the Courts at Kolkata since the parties voluntarily
and mutually agreed for and participated in arbitral proceedings at
Kolkata. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions of
the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the conduct of the respondent in
filing the WS and participation in the present proceedings has
vested jurisdiction at Delhi Courts in view of the aforementioned
case law and discussion and particularly when the respondent has
been consistently disputing and contesting the jurisdiction of Delhi
Courts since filing of its reply on entering appearance in the
present matter. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view
of the foregoing discussions and mutual agreement of the parties
about conduct of arbitral proceedings at Kolkata, the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition U/s 34 of the
Arbitration Act assailing the award dated 25.03.2018 lies
exclusively with the Courts at Kolkata. The contention of Ld.
Counsel for respondent about this Court not being vested with
ARBT. No. 237/18 25 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition has
considerable force and merits in view of the forgoing discussion
and case law. Accordingly the present petition filed by the
petitioner U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Ac, 1996 for setting
aside the arbitral award dated 25.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator at Kolkata is held to be not maintainable in this Court.
The arbitral records be sent back and the file be consigned to
record room after due compliance.
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd vs Nhpc Ltd on 4 March, 2020
31. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the
parties chose and appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator and had also
chosen the venue as Kolkata for arbitration, the petitioner also duly
participated in the conducted arbitral proceedings before Ld. Sole
ARBT. No. 237/18 24 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
Arbitrator without any kind of objection including that of the venue
or appointed Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Thus the parties alebit had not
mentioned about the seat or venue in the Arbitration clause/Article
of Agreement dated 16.12.2008 but both the parties have mutually
agreed for the Arbitration proceedings to be conducted at Kolkata
Accordingly, in view of above elicited law laid in the cases of (i)
BGS SGS SOMA JV (supra); (ii) Hindustan Construction
Company Limited vs NHPC Ltd & Another (supra); (iii) Indus
Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd.
(supra) and (iv) Inox Renewables Ltd. vs Jayesh Electricals Ltd.
(supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the seat of arbitration
is fixed by mutual agreement to be at Kolkata, then Courts at Delhi
are no longer vested with jurisdiction as exclusive jurisdiction is
now vested in the Courts at Kolkata since the parties voluntarily
and mutually agreed for and participated in arbitral proceedings at
Kolkata. This Court does not find any merits in the contentions of
the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the conduct of the respondent in
filing the WS and participation in the present proceedings has
vested jurisdiction at Delhi Courts in view of the aforementioned
case law and discussion and particularly when the respondent has
been consistently disputing and contesting the jurisdiction of Delhi
Courts since filing of its reply on entering appearance in the
present matter. In the considered opinion of this Court and in view
of the foregoing discussions and mutual agreement of the parties
about conduct of arbitral proceedings at Kolkata, the territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition U/s 34 of the
Arbitration Act assailing the award dated 25.03.2018 lies
exclusively with the Courts at Kolkata. The contention of Ld.
Counsel for respondent about this Court not being vested with
ARBT. No. 237/18 25 of 26
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Vs. M/s. Nautandas And Co.
territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present petition has
considerable force and merits in view of the forgoing discussion
and case law. Accordingly the present petition filed by the
petitioner U/s 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Ac, 1996 for setting
aside the arbitral award dated 25.03.2018 passed by the Ld. Sole
Arbitrator at Kolkata is held to be not maintainable in this Court.
The arbitral records be sent back and the file be consigned to
record room after due compliance.
Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. vs Kamachi Industries Ltd. on 25 July, 2019
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Brahmani
River Pellets Limited v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. [(2020 5 SCC
462] has held that the the above observations in para No. (96)
is in the context that on many occasions, agreement may
provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be
neutral to both the parties. In such circumstances, it was
observed that the two courts would have jurisdiction that is the
court within whose jurisdiction subject-matter of the suit is
situated and the court within the jurisdiction of which the
dispute resolution i.e. the venue of arbitration is located. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in said case as under:-
R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Vallabh Glass Works Ltd on 3 February, 1993
33. The above view finds support from the decisions of
this Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon India Limited (1971) 1
SCC 286, A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited v. A.B.C.
Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, R.S.D.V. Finance Corporation
Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited (1993) 2
SCC 130, Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashomore India
Limited (1995) 4 SCC 153, Shriram City Union Finance
Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra (2002) 9 SCC 613, Hanil
Era Textiles Limited v. Puromatic Filters Private Limited (2004)
4 SCC 671 and Balaji Coke Industry Private Limited v. Maa
Bhagwati Coke Gujarat Private Limited (2009) 9 SCC 403."
Angile Insulations vs Davy Ashmore India Ltd. And Anr on 18 April, 1995
33. The above view finds support from the decisions of
this Court in Hakam Singh v. Gammon India Limited (1971) 1
SCC 286, A.B.C. Laminart Private Limited v. A.B.C.
Agencies (1989) 2 SCC 163, R.S.D.V. Finance Corporation
Private Limited v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited (1993) 2
SCC 130, Angile Insulations v. Davy Ashomore India
Limited (1995) 4 SCC 153, Shriram City Union Finance
Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra (2002) 9 SCC 613, Hanil
Era Textiles Limited v. Puromatic Filters Private Limited (2004)
4 SCC 671 and Balaji Coke Industry Private Limited v. Maa
Bhagwati Coke Gujarat Private Limited (2009) 9 SCC 403."