Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (3.66 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Taipack Limited And Ors. vs Ram Kishore Nagar Mal on 23 May, 2007
d) That said, the Court must note that there are a few cases wherein, on
facts, the arbitration clauses printed on the invoices have not been
held as valid. In the specific facts of such cases, the Court could not
conclude that the parties were ad idem to render the arbitration
clauses binding and enforceable. [See: Parmeet Singh Chatwal
(supra), Taipack Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Nagar Mal,6 Alupro Building
Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,7 IMV India Pvt. Ltd.
v. Stridewel International, 8 and Kailash Nath Aggarwal v. Aaren
Exports.9].
Shri Kailash Nath Agarwal vs M/S Aaren Exports & Ors. on 17 November, 2009
d) That said, the Court must note that there are a few cases wherein, on
facts, the arbitration clauses printed on the invoices have not been
held as valid. In the specific facts of such cases, the Court could not
conclude that the parties were ad idem to render the arbitration
clauses binding and enforceable. [See: Parmeet Singh Chatwal
(supra), Taipack Ltd. v. Ram Kishor Nagar Mal,6 Alupro Building
Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd.,7 IMV India Pvt. Ltd.
v. Stridewel International, 8 and Kailash Nath Aggarwal v. Aaren
Exports.9].
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
14. Besides, the Court at this stage has to only form a prima facie view
regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement in terms of Section 11
(6A) of the Act. Detailed examination and final determination regarding the
existence of the arbitration agreement is in the domain of the Arbitral
Tribunal. The Supreme Court, in the case of Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga
Trading Corporation,11 has observed that "the rule for the Court is 'when in
doubt, do refer'". Therein, Justice Ramana, in his concurring opinion, has
clarified the role of this Court in a Section 11 petition, as follows:
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Trimex International Fze Ltd.Dubai vs Vedanta Aluminium Limited,India on 22 January, 2010
b) In Trimex International (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with a
petition under Section 11(6) of the Act, wherein, appointment of an
ARB. P. 241/2021 Page 6 of 13
arbitrator was sought as per the arbitration agreement contained in a
Commercial Offer (Purchase Order) and also in a formal agreement
that was exchanged between the parties. The respondent therein
contested the petition on the ground that there was no concluded
contract, and there was no ad idem of various essential features of
transaction. The Supreme Court, after examining voluminous
communications, including e-mails placed on record forming part of
the text of the judgment, concluded that basic and essential terms had
been accepted by the Respondent. The parties had arrived at a
concluded contract, and accordingly, referred them to arbitration. In
the said case, the Court held that in the absence of a signed agreement
between the parties, the existence of the arbitration agreement can be
inferred from various documents duly approved and signed by the
parties in the form of exchange of e-mails, letters, telex, telegrams and
other means of telecommunication.