Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.79 seconds)Section 11 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 19 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Yogi Agarwal vs M/S Inspiration Clothes & U & Ors on 1 December, 2008
11. It is fundamental that a provision for arbitration to constitute an
arbitration agreement for the purpose of section 7 should satisfy two
9
conditions : (i) it should be between the parties to the dispute; and (ii) it
should relate to or be applicable to the dispute. [See: Yogi Agrawal v.
Inspiration Clothes & U & Ors. - 2009 (1) SCC 372].
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Boghara Polyfab Pvt.Ltd on 18 September, 2008
20. In so far as the issue of existence of arbitration agreement between the
parties, the learned Chief Justice or his Designate is required to decide the
issue finally and it is not permissible in a proceeding under section 11 to
merely hold that a party is prima facie a party to the arbitration agreement
and that a party is prima facie bound by it. It is not as if the Chief Justice or
his Designate will subsequently be passing any other final decision as to
who are the parties to the arbitration agreement. Once a decision is rendered
by the Chief Justice or his Designate under section 11 of the Act, holding
that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, it will not be
permissible for the arbitrator to consider or examine the same issue and
record a finding contrary to the finding recorded by the court. This is
categorically laid down by the Constitution Bench in SBP. Therefore the
prima facie finding by the learned Chief Justice that Indowind is a party to
the arbitration agreement is not what is contemplated by the Act.
16
21 It is no doubt true that if Indowind had acknowledged or confirmed in
any correspondence or other agreement or document, that it is a party to the
arbitration agreement dated 24.2.2006 or that it is bound by the arbitration
agreement contained therein, it could have been possible to say that
Indowind is a party to the arbitration agreement. But that would not be under
section 7(4)(a) but under section 7(4)(b) or section 7(5). Be that as it may.
That is not the case of Wescare. In fact, the delivery notes/invoices issued by
Wescare do not refer to the agreement dated 24.2.2006. Nor does any letter
or correspondence sent by Indowind refers to the agreement dated
24.2.2006, either as an agreement executed by it or as an agreement binding
on it. We may now refer to the several documents referred to and relied on
by Wescare.