Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Alka Bose vs Parmatma Devi & Ors on 17 December, 2008
2024.08.24
17:55:50
+0530
ARB.A. (Comm) 07/22 M/s. Chiranji Lal & Co. vs. Union of India Page 4 of 16
Contract Act, 1872. It is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Alka Bose vs. Paramtma Devi and Ors. in Civil Appeal no.
6197/2000 pronounced on 17.12.2008, that oral agreements are
also valid and that it is not necessary that agreement could be
written only.
Smt. Sheela Gehlot vs Smt. Sonu Kochar And Ors. on 6 September, 2005
Further, in case of Sheela Gehlot vs. Sonu Kochhar
and Anr., reported in (2006) 92 DRJ, the Hon'ble High Court
observed that oral agreements are valid and enforceable and there
could not be any dispute about it and that for the oral agreement
there should be some circumstances surrounding the alleged oral
agreement. It is also contended that Ld. Arbitrator wrongly
concluded in Para 21 of the impugned order that appellant has not
set up any case whatsoever which indicates that clause 38 of the
agreement is contained in terms of Section 7(4) (a to c) of the Act
or that clause 38 of the agreement is constituted in terms of
Section 7(5) of the Act for the Periods 1, 2 and 3 wholly or partly.
It is submitted that there is no requirement that extension or an
arbitration clause which is in writing must also be in writing even
though the parties continue to extend the principal agreement
orally.
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd on 12 October, 2007
It is further submitted that Ld. Arbitrator failed to
appreciate and apply the doctrine of agreement sub silentio a
principle / doctrine laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. The Great Eastern
Shipping Co. Ltd., pronounced on 12.10.2007. It is further
contended that there was an agreement sub silentio as the
respondent continued to avail the services of appellant on the
Digitally
signed by
VINEETA
VINEETA GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
1