Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Planters Airways Pvt. Ltd on 19 December, 1974
With very great respect, I profoundly disagree with this view. In my opinion it is for the court to decide whether the demand for arbitration is barred and has been made beyond the time limit of 90 days, fixed by the contract. The learned Judge also doubted the validity of the clause fixing 90 days as the time limit for making a demand for arbitration. Such a clause in the contract, 1 venture to think, is valid. Where the contract provides that a claim shall be barred unless it is referred to arbitration within a certain time the court is empowered u/s 37(4) of the Act to interfere if it is of opinion that in the circumstances of the case "undue hardship" would otherwise be caused to a party. The court may extend the time and make the order subject to terms as it thinks proper. This sub-section (4) of S. 37 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Planters Airways Pvt. Ltd., 1955 (1) Scc 603.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Vilayatiram Mital vs Union Of India on 13 December, 1979
(10) My attention was drawn to a decision of Dalip Kapur J. in Vilayatiram Mital v. Union of India, 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter 313. The learned Judge was of the view that it will be for the arbitrator to find whether the government has been discharged and released from liability and whether the claim has been waived. Whether the claims were barred or not, he said, should be determined by the arbitrator and not by the Court. He said : "The Court cannot decide this question as this will be exceeding its jurisdiction".
1