Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction to proceed with the suit was ousted because an arbitral award had been passed and the defendants sought reference to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The suit itself challenged the arbitration agreements as illegal, null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. In a matter of international commercial arbitration, the court seized of the action retains jurisdiction to decide whether the arbitration agreement is valid, inoperative, or incapable of performance before any reference to arbitration can be made under Section 45. The position is distinct from Section 8, which operates mandatorily in domestic arbitration on a timely application and after the statutory requirements are satisfied. The mere passing of an award in connected arbitral proceedings did not, by itself, extinguish the civil court's jurisdiction in the pending suit, and the scope of the revision did not justify dismissal of the entire suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was not shown to be ousted, and the order rejecting the defendants' jurisdictional objection was upheld. The revision was rejected.