1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Arbitral Tribunal to Decide Jurisdiction in Contract Disputes</h1> The High Court of Calcutta held that the Arbitral Tribunal will determine its jurisdiction over disputes referred to arbitration under five contracts with ... Reference of disputes and differences to Arbitration under five several contracts - reference made by the Facilitation Council, MSME, under Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) - applicability of MSMED Act to the Works Contract - legality of clubbing of five different contracts into one reference for adjudication - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that without prejudice to any of the rights and contentions of the writ petitioner, the question jurisdiction on each raised by the petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal - The Tribunal shall decide on its jurisdiction on inter alia the questions raised by the writ petitioner before entering into other questions. Petition disposed off. The High Court of Calcutta disposed of a writ petition challenging an order referring disputes to arbitration under five contracts with M/s. Saket Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner argued that the MSMED Act does not apply and that work contracts are not covered by it. The Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal will decide on its jurisdiction regarding the issues raised by the petitioner. No costs were awarded in this case.