Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Satpal Singh Bakshi on 13 September, 2012
34. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that the judgments of
the Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in Sarthak Builders Pvt.
Ltd. v. Orissa Rural Development Corporation Limited
MANU/OR/0110/2014, the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in
Digitally Signed ARB.P. 203/2023 Page 6 of 9
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.05.2024
15:35:20
HDFC Bank Limited v. Satpal Singh Bakshi (supra) and the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Pradeep Kumar
Gupta v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0209/2009 : AIR 2010 All 3 lay
down the correct proposition of law and the view expressed by the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Deccan Chronicles Holdings
Limited v. Union of India MANU/AP/0060/2014: AIR 2014 Andhra
Pradesh 78 following the overruled decision of the Orissa High
Court in Subash Chandra Panda v. State of Orissa
MANU/OR/0069/2008: AIR 2008 Ori 88 does not set forth the
correct position in law. SARFAESI proceedings and arbitration
proceedings, thus, can go hand in hand."
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Shri Jagannath Memorial Educational ... on 3 October, 2023
15. This court in Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs. Shri Jagannath
Memorial Educational Trust and Ors, passed in ARB.P. 251/2023 in this
regard has held as under:-
Section 18 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
M/S Fermina Developers Pvt Ltd And Anr vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd on 23 February, 2023
13. Para 49 of Fermina Developers (supra) relying on Vidya Drolia
(supra) is relevant and reads as under:
M.D.Frozen Foods Exports Private ... vs Hero Fincorp Limited on 13 July, 2017
"11. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision in M.D. Frozen Foods
Exports (supra) has held that recourse to SARFAESI Act and
Arbitration Act can co-exist. Although the SARFAESI Act is a
special legislation pertaining to enforcement of securities, this view
taken by the Supreme Court supports the contention that parallel
proceedings do not inherently nullify the arbitral process. Thus,
even if the Petitioner is said to have acquiesced to the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court, this in itself does not preclude the possibility of
pursuing arbitration, as there can be different sets of claims in the
two proceedings, notwithstanding the overlap."
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
"8. At this stage, it would be apt to first tackle the objection raised
by Mr. Uppal concerning the non-arbitrability of the present
disputes in light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Vidya
Drolia (supra). Although Ms. Chaudhary has subsequently
retracted this objection in the course of her submissions, thus
rendering its consideration by this Court to be ostensibly
redundant, addressing this objection is crucial to acknowledge a
key aspect of this case. In Vidya Drolia, the Supreme Court has
indeed held that claims covered by the RDB Act are non-arbitrable.
However, the Petitioner is not notified as a „financial institution‟ in
Digitally Signed ARB.P. 203/2023 Page 5 of 9
By:AMIT ARORA
Signing Date:20.05.2024
15:35:20
terms of Section 2(h) of the RDB Act, nor is it a „Bank‟ or „Banking
Company‟ within the meaning of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the RDB
Act. Thus, Petitioner is ineligible to institute proceedings and avail
the resolution mechanisms stipulated under the RDB Act.
Consequently, this contention of the Respondent, which hinges on
the applicability of the RDB Act to the Petitioner, is foundationally
flawed."