Tag Archives: Contractual Dispute

Determination or Order

        The word “determination” has to be contextually determined. In Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reproduced the definition of “determination” from Law Lexicon, 2nd Edition by P. Ramanatha Iyer and Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. It reads thus:

        “Determination or order.—The expression “determination” signifies an effective expression of opinion which ends a controversy or a dispute by some authority to whom it is submitted under a valid law for disposal. The expression “order” must have also a similar meaning, except that it need not operate to end the dispute. Determination or order must be judicial or quasi – judicial. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 SC 677.

        A “determination” is a final judgment for purposes of appeal when the Trial Court has completed its adjudication of the rights of the parties in the action. Thomas Van Dyken Joint centure v. Van Dyken, 27 NW 2d 459.

          The said test clearly means that the expression of determination signifies an expressive opinion. Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc., 2019 (132) ALR 263.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Determination

Appointment of Arbitrator – Applicability of Article 137 of Limitation Act

It is not in dispute that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply to applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi v. DDA, (1998) 2 SCC 338, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in application for appointment of arbitrator Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply.

       Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to applications both under Civil Procedure Code and under the Special Acts. Article 137 constitutes the residuary Article in regard to applications. The starting point of limitation under Article 137 is the date when “the right to apply arises”. Article 137 being a residuary Article to be adopted to different classes of applications, the expression “the right to apply” is expression of a broad common law principle and it has to be interpreted according to the circumstances of each case. In Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, 1995 (2) SCR 936, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “the right to apply” means “the right to apply first arises”.

       Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, right to apply to the Court having jurisdiction would arise from the date such controversy arises between the parties. Central Electronics Limited v. Friends Cable Industries, Noida, 2017 (125) ALR 588.

Leave a comment

Filed under Applicability of Limitation Act, Arbitration