Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Voltas Ltd vs Rolta India Ltd on 14 February, 2014
8. Counsel for petitioner on the point of Section 8, 11 and 21
of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 relied upon the judgment of
Voltas Limited Vs. Rolta India Limited and State of Goa Vs.
Praveen Enterprises both of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Narayan
OMP (COMM) No. 20/18
Web Overseas Limited Vs. Universal Industrial Plants Manufacturing Company Private Limited Page No. 11 of 24
Prasad Jalan Vs. Chetan PS Chauhan and Others OMP 292/2004
decided on 18.08.2005 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Anacon
Process Control Private Limited Vs. Gammon India Limited
decided on 22.12.2016 in Arbitration application no. 108/2015 by
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The first two judgments were basically
referred on the point of twin test in respect of applicability of Section
21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for limitation. The
judgment of Narayan Prasad Jalan was referred on the point that u/s 8
of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the judicial authority merely refers
parties to the Arbitration and it has no power to appoint the Arbitrator
or refer to dispute to the Arbitrator which can be done only u/s 11 of
the Act. The judgment of Anacon Process Control Private Limited was
referred on the point that a petition u/s 8 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act cannot be treated as a request to the party for
arbitration for applicability of Section 21 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. Reference was made to para 14 of the judgment
which read as under :