Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 a fresh application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable after the claimant had abandoned the earlier arbitral proceedings and whether the later application was barred as being founded on the same cause of action.
Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined primarily to the existence of an arbitration agreement, but principles analogous to Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can apply where a party abandons earlier proceedings without liberty to institute a fresh one. Abandonment cannot be lightly inferred, but a clear communication declining to participate further and the surrounding conduct may establish that the claimant has given up the earlier proceeding. On the facts, the later application did not arise from a new cause of action merely because the earlier unrelated litigation concerning the auction of the land had concluded; the dispute between the parties remained the same and had already been invoked earlier.
Conclusion: The subsequent application under Section 11(6) was not maintainable and was barred by the principles governing abandonment and fresh proceedings on the same cause of action.