Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. vs Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd on 4 March, 2014
9. The aforesaid decision clearly explains that the courts having
jurisdiction where the arbitration is located would also have jurisdiction
under Part-I of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court has also followed
the aforesaid dicta in its decision in Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. V.
Panasonic Electric Works Co. Ltd.: 208 (2014) DLT 597 (DB).
M/S Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd vs Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd & Ors on 18 February, 2013
"We agree with the view taken in Sai Consulting (supra) and
hold that the Courts at the seat or place of arbitration would
have territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under the
said Act subject to the provisions of Section 42 thereof,
irrespective of the fact that the cause of action arose elsewhere
and/or the respondent resides elsewhere."
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs A.P. Agencies, Salem on 13 March, 1989
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bharat Aluminium Co vs Kaiser Aluminium Technical ... on 6 September, 2012
8. At the outset, it is relevant to refer to the paragraph 96 of the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company (supra)
which is set out below:-