Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.37 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Hungerford Investment Trust Limited ... vs Haridas Mundhra & Others on 9 March, 1972
By relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. S.
B. P. and Co. vs. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (supra), Mr. Banerjee tried
to convince us that the allegation of forgery in the matter of execution of the
agreement between parties containing an arbitration clause now should be
decided by the Arbitrator and not by the Civil Court and thus, we should restrain
the appellant from filing a civil suit.
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007
For the selfsame reason, the decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee in the cases
of Vigil services Ltd. vs. Cochin shipyard Ltd., Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa
Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Aurohill Global Commodities Ltd. vs.
M/s. M.S.T.C. Ltd, Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia and
others, and Hythro Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Delhi Transco Ltd. (supra), are all
inconsequential for deciding the question of bar of Section 41 of the Act. We,
however, make it clear we have not gone into the question whether it is for the
Civil Court alone to decide the dispute as to whether the agreement between the
parties containing the alleged arbitration clause was vitiated by fraud or forgery
as discussed in those decisions inasmuch as such question is irrelevant for our
purpose when we propose to set aside the order impugned only on the ground of
bar created under Section 41 of the Act.
Modi Entertainment Network & Anr vs W.S.G.Cricket Pte. Ltd on 21 January, 2003
Hythro Power Corporation Ltd vs Delhi Transco Ltd on 30 July, 2003
We have already relied upon the observations
of the Supreme Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Ltd (supra), and
thus, without going into such controversy, we hold that assuming for the sake of
argument, even if a suit is barred, such question should be decided in the suit
itself and no injunction can be granted from instituting a suit in violation of
Section 41(b) of the Act. We, thus, find that the said decision does not help Mr.
Banerjee in anyway for overcoming the bar created under Section 41(b) and (d) of
the Act.
Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd vs Chand Mal Baradia And Others on 29 March, 2005
For the selfsame reason, the decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee in the cases
of Vigil services Ltd. vs. Cochin shipyard Ltd., Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa
Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Aurohill Global Commodities Ltd. vs.
M/s. M.S.T.C. Ltd, Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chand Mal Baradia and
others, and Hythro Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Delhi Transco Ltd. (supra), are all
inconsequential for deciding the question of bar of Section 41 of the Act. We,
however, make it clear we have not gone into the question whether it is for the
Civil Court alone to decide the dispute as to whether the agreement between the
parties containing the alleged arbitration clause was vitiated by fraud or forgery
as discussed in those decisions inasmuch as such question is irrelevant for our
purpose when we propose to set aside the order impugned only on the ground of
bar created under Section 41 of the Act.
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Western Company Of North America on 16 January, 1987
In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Western Company of
North America (supra), the question was whether the provision of Section 41 (b)
of the Act is applicable even in restraining a party from proceeding in a foreign
Court. In that context, the Apex Court made the following observations: