Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 8 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Jadavji Narsidas Shah And Co. vs Hirachand Chatrabhuj on 13 July, 1953
Authority for such a view is available, Jadavji Narsidas Shah and Co. v. Hirachand Chaturbhai, . We, therefore, hold that it is not necessary that an application for stay under Section 34 of the Act can be made only within the time prescribed in Chapter XV of the Original Side Rules or Order 37, CPC and shall be rejected if not made in time. Such an application can be made as long as a decree has not been passed and before any application has been made indicating that the defendant wants his rights to be determined by the civil and not by the domestic Forum of choice."
Vasanji Mavji And Company, A Registered ... vs K.P.C. Spinners, A Partnership Firm, ... on 6 January, 1982
20. A somewhat similar situation confronted the Madras High Court in the decision reported as , Vasanji Navji and Co. v. K.P.C. Spinners and Ors. A contract was entered into between the parties which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties under the contract Certain cheques were issued. The cheques were not honoured resulting in the filing of the suit. Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the defendant. The same was allowed and the suit was stayed. Matter came up in appeal before the Division Bench of the Court. It was held as under:
The Special Courts Act, 1979
The Pench Valley Coal Co. Ltd. vs The Indian Cable Co. Ltd. on 17 May, 1974
"The Calcutta High Court in Pench Valley (supra), was of the view that if the defendant is allowed to make an application under Section 34 of the Act even after 20 days, then it will defeat the provision of Order 37. We are and may be permitted to say so with respect, not in agreement with that approach. The proper way of looking at the matter is that the special law of arbitration should be allowed to prevail over the general law. If the procedure under Order 37 or Chapter XV of the Original Side Rule is allowed to prevail and the period of 20 days is held to operate as the period of limitation for making a stay application under Section 34 of the Act then, the defendant will not at all be able to make such an application unless he has obtained leave to appear and defend because it is only upon such leave being given that a defendant is entitled to be heard in the matter. And if he makes an application to obtain leave to appear and defend, then, it will amount to taking a step in the proceedings and he will be precluded from making an application under Section 34 of the Act.
Roopak Bambha vs K.C. Bhandari on 4 April, 1994
21. The said judgment was followed in , Roopak Bambha v. K.C. Bhandari. In the said judgment it was held that notwithstanding the fact that partnership agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, the suit could not be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 because of the fact that the partnership stood dissolved. The balance sheet was settled and a cheque was issued in favor of the plaintiff in settlement of the dues of the plaintiff. It was held that the cause of action of the suit was the cheque in question which was dishonoured.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs Apollo Tyres Limited on 2 September, 1986
22. A similar view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported as 2nd (1986) 1 Delhi 382, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Apollo Tyres Limited. Parties were governed by an agreement which contained an arbitration clause. Disputes arose, resulting in a settlement arrived at pursuant to which a cheque was issued towards satisfaction of the settlement arrived at. The cheque was dishonoured. A suit for recovery was filed. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed praying that the suit be stayed in view of the arbitration clause between the parties. It was held that the dispute under the cheque did not relate to a dispute under the agreement. With the settlement arrived at, the dispute under the agreement between the parties stood settled. The agreement stood discharged and so did the arbitration clause. It was held that the cause of action was the settlement arrived at and not the contract.
1