Back
SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA
Graviss Foods Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ice Cream Garden – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
1. By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed order dated 18.04.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in OMP No. 221 of 2015 in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015, whereby the application of appellant filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “1996 Act”) has been rejected.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that respondents herein have filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 60,00,000/- on account of damages against the appellant herein. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015 in this Court. The appellant/defendant filed an application under Section 8 of 1996 Act in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2015 seeking reference of the matter to arbitration, basing its claim on an arbitration clause allegedly existing in an agreement between the parties. Respondents/plaintiffs resisted the application and finally learned Single Judge dismissed the application of appellant/defendant and held the suit to be maintainable.
3. Respondents/plaintiffs at the out set have challenged the maintainability of instant appeal. As per respondents/plaintiffs, order refusing to refer the parties to Arbitration under Section 8
Sections 18 to 27 deal with conduct of arbitral proceedings before an arbitral tribunal.
The Amendment Act, 2015 is prospective in nature and will apply to arbitral proceedings commenced after its commencement. The notice invoking arbitration issued prior to the Amendment Act, 2015 and t....
The Amendment Act applies to applications under S.34 filed after its commencement, clarifying the scope and distinction in applicability of law.
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a mandatory effect, and once the conditions are fulfilled, the court is obligated to refer the parties to arbitration.
An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed before the first written statement and within the prescribed limitation period; otherwise, it is not maintainable.
Arbitration and Conciliation - Tender - Setting aside of Award - Context of not allowing new or fresh challenge after period of limitation does not mean that under Act, there are multiple petitions u....
Venue of arbitration does not equate to its jurisdictional seat; petitions under the Arbitration Act must be filed where arbitration took place, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
