Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2001 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (8) TMI 1303 - SUPREME COURTWhether the requirement was met in the present case and found that the signature of the agent of the carrier was not sufficient since his power of attorney was not in writing and that the signature of the other party was also lacking and his endorsement does not replace the signature, since the former concerns only a transfer of title, whilst the latter is necessary for the formation of the contract? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The appellant cannot any longer challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and such an agreement was not covered by the New York Convention. The arbitrators view was acceptable that the force majeure clause had no limitation on the period of suspension of the contract while the execution was affected by a valid force majeure that it had been accepted by both the parties and that the restriction and requirements imposed by the RBI directives must be construed as having caused interference in and/or hindrance to the execution of the contract time wise; that though time had been considered to be of the essence condition, the inclusion of the force majeure clause which provided no time limit to the suspension of the contract caused by conditions envisaged herein though unusual it was accepted that the earlier contracts would be negotiated and executed successfully by the parties to the dispute.
|