Arbitration Of Act - Judgment Search Results
In Re: Indian Arbitration Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR351
the Companies on the one part and Mr. Ahmedbhoy on the other part thematters were referred to the arbitration of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Dwarkadas Dharamsey.2. The arbitration proceedings having reached a certain stage a difference of opinion … Rule 75, Clause (v), provides that ' applications in all matters arising under' amongst others 'the Indian Arbitration Act may be disposed of by a Judge in Chambers '. There is however a proviso to the clause
In Re: Indian Arbitration Act; in Re: Babaldas Khemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR842; 57Ind.Cas.997
a petition by the 1st defendant partner for stay of the suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, on the ground that the partnership agreement included a submission to arbitration.3. The submission is in
In Re: Indian Arbitration Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1919
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1
a petition by the 1st defendant partner for stay of the suit under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, on the ground that the partnership-agreement included a submission, to arbitration.3. The submission is in Clause
18-section briefs on any result in this list
In Re: the Arbitration Act and the Reference, to Arbitration by Messrs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.850
four indents and after some preliminary correspondence between the parties the matter in different was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Bradshaw of Messrs. Tetley and Whitley and Mr. Jackson, of Messrs. Beardsell & Co., under the terms … the arbitrators in pursuance of the submission. The petitioner entered into certain contracts with the counter-petitioner who was acting as agent of an English Firm, viz., Messrs. Johnstone Kelly and Macdona. Disputes arose between the parties as
In Re: the Indian Arbitration Act (ix of 1899)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.3
contract.'5. In Hutcheson v. Eaton (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 861 : 51 L.T. 846 it was held that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide on custom inconsistent with the terms. In that particular transaction the plaintiffs alleged … knew of the alleged custom. There is a clear distinction between Sections 230 and 236 of the Contract Act. The latter Section deals with the case of a person falsely contracting as agent. He is not, entitled
In Re: the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899;
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.439
September 1919 in respect of the execution of the awards.2. On the 24th June 1918 Baijnath applied for arbitration in respect of difference due to him from Allibhoy Mahomed on Advise Notes Nos. 23 and 31 and
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free