|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 71 of 71 Records
-
2018 (5) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT
Reference for arbitration - Maintainability of application - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - application dismissed on the ground that the agreements between the parties are not inter-connected with the principal agreement dated 05.03.2012 and therefore, the parties cannot be referred to arbitration.
Held that: - Since all the three agreements of Rishabh with Juwi India and Astonfield had the purpose of commissioning the Photovoltaic Solar Plant project at Dongri, Raksa, District Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, the High Court was not right in saying that the Sale and Purchase Agreement (05.03.2012) is the main agreement. The High Court, in our view, erred in not keeping in view the various clauses in all the three agreements which make them as an integral part of the principal agreement namely Equipment Lease Agreement (14.03.2012) and the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained.
Under the Act, an arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement - However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
All the agreements and the parties thereon are referred to arbitration - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 613 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction to award compensation - whether the CIC had the jurisdiction to award compensation under Section 19(8) of the Act for unjustified incarceration? - Held that: - It is at once clear from the scheme of Section 19 of the Act that the provisions of section 19(8) of the Act are an adjunct to the power of the CIC or the SIC to consider the appeal against the decision of the FAA. Such power is relatable to the question of furnishing the information (or denial thereof) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act duly empowers the CIC or the SIC as an appellate authority to compensate a complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
The CIC has no jurisdiction to enter into the controversy whether respondent no.1‟s detention for the extended period was justified or not. This controversy is completely alien to and outside the purview of the Act.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (5) TMI 491 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Liability of respondent to pay the cheque amount - Held that: - Trial Court rightly held that the petitioner failed to prove that there was any legal liability of the respondent to pay the cheque amount and dismissed the complaint, thereby acquitting the respondent - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 414 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Award of the arbitrator and the findings of the High Court are contrary to the express provision of Clause 19, according to which no escalation is permissible to the contractor for, inter alia, increase in wages of labour due to statutory hike, which the contractor may have to incur during the execution of the work on any account?
Held that: - On a plain reading of Clause 6.3 read with Clause 19, it is evident that it was particularly made clear that no escalation would be reimbursed even in the case of Regulation. Hence, in the presence of such clauses, which respondent voluntarily agreed before accepting the contract, any departure cannot be allowed - the respondent cannot claim reimbursement of excess of minimum wages on account of hike due to the Notification of the Government of Haryana. If any departure would be allowed from the terms and conditions of the contract, then it would destroy the basic purpose of the contract provided such conditions shall not be arbitrary.
It is a settled law that the process of interpretation is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. On a perusal of the said two paragraphs of the impugned judgment, we fail to understand that on what parameters the High Court has interpreted Clause 19 in light of Clause 25 of the Contract.
The respondent-Contractor in the present case is not entitled to claim any escalation in minimum wages as it would be against the condition of Clause 19 read with Clause 6.3 - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
Rejection of arbitration application - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Trial Court rejected said application holding that there was no reference as to who should be the arbitrator, that there was no mention about selection of the arbitrator and that the dispute did not form subject matter of agreement within the meaning of Section 8 of 1996 Act.
Held that: - In the present case though the Partnership Agreement was entered into after 1996 Act had come into force, the relevant clause made reference to “arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940”. It is not the case of the respondent that the agreement between the parties suffered from any infirmity on account of fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. What is however projected is that the reference to arbitration in terms of 1940 Act was such a fundamental mistake that it would invalidate the entire arbitration clause and as such there could not be any reference to arbitration at all.
In a given case, reference to arbitration in the agreement entered into before 1996 Act came into force was in terms of 1940 Act and if the arbitral proceedings had not commenced before 1996 Act came into force, the provisions of 1996 Act alone would govern the situation. The reference to “Indian Arbitration Act” or to “arbitration under 1940 Act” in such cases would be of no consequence and the matter would still be governed under 1996 Act. Would it then make any difference if in an agreement entered into after 1996 Act, the reference made by the parties in the agreement was to arbitration in terms of 1940 Act.
The High Court was not right in observing that there could be no arbitration at all in the present case - even if an arbitration agreement entered into after 1996 Act had come into force were to make a reference to the applicable provisions of those under Indian Arbitration Act or 1940 Act, such stipulation would be of no consequence and the matter must be governed under provisions of 1996 Act. An incorrect reference or recital regarding applicability of 1940 Act would not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid.
The matter will have to be dealt with by the trial court in terms of Section 8 of 1996 Act - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 327 - SUPREME COURT
Compensation of damages occurred due to Cyclone - appellant failed to settle the claim of respondent (insured) - case referred to the arbitrator - Held that: - In the instant case, Clause 13 categorically lays the postulate that if the insurer has disputed or not accepted the liability, no difference or dispute shall be referred to arbitration. The thrust of the matter is whether the insurer has disputed or not accepted the liability under or in respect of the policy.
The disputation squarely comes within Part II of Clause 13. The said Part of the Clause clearly spells out that the parties have agreed and understood that no differences and disputes shall be referable to arbitration if the company has disputed or not accepted the liability. The communication ascribes reasons for not accepting the claim at all. It is nothing else but denial of liability by the insurer in toto. It is not a disputation pertaining to quantum. In the present case, we are not concerned with regard to whether the policy was void or not as the same was not raised by the insurer. The insurance-company has, on facts, repudiated the claim by denying to accept the liability on the basis of the aforesaid reasons. No inference can be drawn that there is some kind of dispute with regard to quantification. It is a denial to indemnify the loss as claimed by the respondent. Such a situation, according to us, falls on all fours within the concept of denial of disputes and non-acceptance of liability.
It is not a situation where a stand is taken that certain claims pertain to excepted matters and are, hence, not arbitrable. The language used in the second part is absolutely categorical and unequivocal inasmuch as it stipulates that it is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or disputes shall be referable to arbitration if the company has disputed or not accepted the liability - the High Court has fallen into grave error by expressing the opinion that there is incongruity between Part II and Part III.
Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction - International commercial arbitration proceeding - According to the respondent, the Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application filed under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the legality and correctness of an award - Held that: - this is a fit case to exercise our power under Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and refer this case (appeal ) to be dealt with by the larger Bench of this Court for its hearing - Registry directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting the appropriate Bench for hearing and disposal of this appeal.
-
2018 (5) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants’ appeals as being barred by time and was justified in holding that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeals? - Held that: - The limitation to file an appeal before the Tribunal is 45 days from the date of the service of the order as prescribed under SAFEMA. However, if the appeal is filed beyond the period of 45 days then on sufficient cause being shown, the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal only up to 60 days but not beyond the period of 60 days - In this case, the appeals were filed beyond the period of 60 days, i.e., the appeals were filed on 81st day after the service of the order.
The Tribunal, Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court were right in dismissing the appeals as being barred by limitation holding that there was no sufficient cause in filing the appeals beyond the period of limitation and that the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay beyond 60 days - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (5) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of petition - petitioner having withdrawn earlier writ petition without any leave - Held that: - It is fairly clear that the petition was withdrawn only on account of the pendency of the appeal. Apparently, that is why the High Court has, in fact, not dismissed the petition; it has only disposed it of - It appears that the prayer challenging the subsequent order passed in appeal was not brought to the notice of the High Court - petition is maintainable.
-
2018 (5) TMI 121 - SUPREME COURT
Smuggling - prohibited goods - cannabis mixture weighing about 18.85 kgs - absence of independent witnesses - Held that: - the grounds on which the High Court have reversed the findings of conviction of the accused-respondents ought not to be accepted - no suggestion was given to the witnesses (PWs 12 and 13) who had taken the samples to the laboratory that the contraband parcel has been tampered with. PW-16, who had chemically examined the contraband samples, was fully cross-examined by the defence. There is nothing in his evidence to suggest that the sample(s) came to him in a torn or otherwise doubtful condition.
In the absence of any animosity between the police party and the accused and having regard to the large quantity of contraband that was recovered (18.85 kgs.), we are of the view that it is unlikely that the contraband had been planted/foisted in the vehicle of the accused persons.
Order of the High Court acquitting the accused-respondents set aside - order of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused-respondents under Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 restored.
-
2018 (5) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT
Preserving of case property - case of respondent is that the case property was destroyed under the provisions of the Act and the inventory and photographs were submitted during trial which form primary evidence under the Act - Held that: - The contraband stuff as also the samples sealed as usual were handed over physically to the Investigating Officer Harvinder Singh (PW 6). Also the trial Court in its judgment specifically passed instructions to preserve the seized property and record of the case in safe custody, as the co-accused Bhanwarlal was absconding.
Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce the bulk quantity of seized opium would create a doubt in the mind of Court on the genuineness of the samples drawn and marked as A, B, C, D, E, F from the allegedly seized contraband. However, the simple argument that the same had been destroyed, cannot be accepted as it is not clear that on what authority it was done.
Appeal dismissed.
|
