Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.97 seconds)
Guduguntla Kotaiah vs B.Krishna on 20 July, 2022 cites

Rashid Raza vs Sadaf Akhtar on 4 September, 2019

SCC 713 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 656] , which quotes observations in Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar [Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] : (Rashid Raza case [Rashid Raza v. Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 503] , SCC p. 712, para 4) "4. The principles of law laid down in this appeal make a distinction between serious allegations of forgery/fabrication in support of the plea of fraud as opposed to "simple allegations". Two working tests laid down in para 25 are : (1) does this plea permeate the entire contract and above all, the agreement of arbitration, rendering it void, or (2) whether the allegations of fraud touch upon the internal affairs of the parties inter se having no implication in the public domain."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 39 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Avitel Post Studioz Limited And Ors. vs Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) Limited on 19 August, 2020

From the above decision, it is clear that where there are simple allegations of fraud which do not go to the root of the contract and the existence of arbitration agreement, such disputes are arbitrable. However, the party alleging fraud has to prima facie satisfy the court that facts constituting such fraud exist. In the present case, the Respondent has stated that a subsequent agreement dated 27.03.2018 was entered into and regular payments were made under the said agreement. However, the Respondent has failed to place any material on record suggesting that an agreement dated 27.03.2018 was entered into. No copy of the agreement dated 27.03.2018 was placed before this Court. Further, no payment 8 receipts evidencing payment of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the Applicant were produced before this Court. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that allegations of fraud exist and the dispute is non- arbitrable cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 39 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. vs Hsbc Pi Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. on 11 April, 2014

73. A recent judgment of this Court in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 SCC 713 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 656] has examined the law on invocation of "fraud exception" in great detail and holds that N. Radhakrishnan [N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers, (2010) 1 SCC 72 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 12] as a precedent has no legs to stand on. We respectfully concur with the said view and also the observations made in para 34 of the judgment in Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. [Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., (2021) 4 1 (2021) 2 SCC 1.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1