The Bombay High Court explained that if it was to consider the instant application under Section 11 of A&C Act, it would have to work on the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty, if any.
Calcutta High Court held that all the reliefs sought by the petitioner is to protect the subject matter of the arbitration and to preserve the rights of the parties under the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).
In the instant matter, the primary issue was the incorporation of arbitration clauses from the Master Facility Agreement and Settlement Agreement and the maintainability of a composite reference.
“It is palpably clear that the language of the purported arbitration clause must evidence an unambiguous, explicit and unequivocal intention to refer the disputes to arbitration, leaving no room for doubt that parties chose arbitration as their only mode of resolution of disputes.”
Where parties decide to put an end to the original contract as if it never existed and substituted a new contract with it, then in such a situation the original contract is extinguished by the substituted one and the arbitration clause of the original one perishes with it.
The parties may choose to enter two different contracts covering the same transaction at different points of time, however, the purchase orders do not in any manner supersede the contract between the parties.
The Court, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, can refuse to refer the parties to arbitration only where “it is manifestly and ex facie certain that the arbitration agreement is nonexistent, invalid or the disputes are non-arbitrable, though the nature and facet of non-arbitrability would, to some extent, determine the level and nature of judicial scrutiny.”
Bombay High Court: B.P. Colabawalla, J., addressed an arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Instant
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that once an officer of the department is appointed
by Ashwini Chawla† and Aditya Pratap Singh Rathore††
“The availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case.”
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., issued notice to the respondent in a petition filed under Section 9 [interim measures, etc. by
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): The Division Bench of Justice Bansi Lal Bhat (Acting Chairperson) and Dr Ashok Kumar Mishra (Technical
Orissa High Court: K. R. Mohapatra J., dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
Supreme Court: The bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for
Bombay High Court: N.J. Jamadar, J., while disposing of an interim application filed by the defendants in a commercial division summary suit,
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ has issued notice to Pometon Spa, an Italian company involved in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Petitioner had filed this petition before a Bench of Subodh Abhyankar, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution
Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of Dinesh Maheshwari, J. while hearing a petition praying for the appointment of an