<div class="xblock xblock-public_view xblock-public_view-vertical" data-course-id="course-v1:EBC-Learning+welcome-to-the-preview-course+2024" data-init="VerticalStudentView" data-runtime-class="LmsRuntime" data-runtime-version="1" data-block-type="vertical" data-usage-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+welcome-to-the-preview-course+2024+type@vertical+block@02d0cc8da1fe4dd3bf13c195ddb2e582" data-request-token="3c9de65067c711f086590242ac120008" data-graded="False" data-has-score="False">
<div class="vert-mod">
<div class="vert vert-0" data-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+welcome-to-the-preview-course+2024+type@html+block@68c9b31b509b4c36a52a94895bd53a73">
<div class="xblock xblock-public_view xblock-public_view-html xmodule_display xmodule_HtmlBlock" data-course-id="course-v1:EBC-Learning+welcome-to-the-preview-course+2024" data-init="XBlockToXModuleShim" data-runtime-class="LmsRuntime" data-runtime-version="1" data-block-type="html" data-usage-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+welcome-to-the-preview-course+2024+type@html+block@68c9b31b509b4c36a52a94895bd53a73" data-request-token="3c9de65067c711f086590242ac120008" data-graded="False" data-has-score="False">
<script type="json/xblock-args" class="xblock-json-init-args">
{"xmodule-type": "HTMLModule"}
</script>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://ebc-assets.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/css/course-default-styles.css">
<div class="banner-image" id="banner-element">
<p class="banner-heading-text-two-line"><span>Further Readings</span><br><span class="banner-sub-heading">Course 2: Navigating Arbitration Proceedings</span></p>
</div>
<script>
var bannerElement = document.getElementById("banner-element");
var imageUrl = "https://ebclearning.com/asset-v1:EBC-Learning+law-of-contract+2023+type@asset+block@introduction-to-precedents.webp";
bannerElement.setAttribute("data-image-url", "");
bannerElement.style.setProperty("--image-url", `url(${imageUrl})`);
</script>
<div class="body-text-large">
<ul>
<li><span class="padded-dropcap">E</span>nercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH (2014) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that courts should adopt a pragmatic and not a pedantic approach when interpreting an arbitration clause to make it workable if possible.</li>
<li>Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719: This case clarified that an arbitration agreement must evidence a clear intention to refer disputes to arbitration.</li>
<li>MMTC Limited v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd (1996) 6 SCC 716 The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement does not need to specify the number of arbitrators.</li>
<li>Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov (House of Lords): This case, while not Indian, is influential and emphasizes that an arbitration clause should be interpreted to include all disputes arising from the relationship unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is often referred to in the Indian context.</li>
<li>Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc (2013) 1 SCC 641: This case discusses the extent to which a court can examine the validity of an arbitration agreement, emphasizing a prima facie approach to determine if the arbitration agreement exists.</li>
<li>A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016) 10 SCC 386: The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of fraud by one party against another cannot be a ground to hold that the matter is incapable of settlement by arbitration.</li>
<li>Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181: This case explains that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.</li>
<li>Sukanya Holdings Put. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr AIR 2003 SC 2252: This case discusses the scope and limitations of referring a matter to arbitration if only some of the parties to a dispute are party to an arbitration agreement.</li>
<li>Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance (2011) 5 SCC 532: This case clarifies which kinds of disputes are arbitrable.</li>
<li>Shin Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 234: The Supreme Court held that at the pre-reference stage, the court must conduct a prima facie examination of the validity of the arbitration agreement.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function (require) {
require(['/static/js/dateutil_factory.a28baef97506.js?raw'], function () {
require(['js/dateutil_factory'], function (DateUtilFactory) {
DateUtilFactory.transform('.localized-datetime');
});
});
}).call(this, require || RequireJS.require);
</script>
<script>
function emit_event(message) {
parent.postMessage(message, '*');
}
</script>
</div>
Further Readings Course 2: Navigating Arbitration Proceedings
Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GMBH (2014) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that courts should adopt a pragmatic and not a pedantic approach when interpreting an arbitration clause to make it workable if possible.
Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 SCC 719: This case clarified that an arbitration agreement must evidence a clear intention to refer disputes to arbitration.
MMTC Limited v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd (1996) 6 SCC 716 The Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement does not need to specify the number of arbitrators.
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov (House of Lords): This case, while not Indian, is influential and emphasizes that an arbitration clause should be interpreted to include all disputes arising from the relationship unless explicitly stated otherwise. It is often referred to in the Indian context.
Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Severn Trent Water Purification Inc (2013) 1 SCC 641: This case discusses the extent to which a court can examine the validity of an arbitration agreement, emphasizing a prima facie approach to determine if the arbitration agreement exists.
A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016) 10 SCC 386: The Supreme Court held that a mere allegation of fraud by one party against another cannot be a ground to hold that the matter is incapable of settlement by arbitration.
Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181: This case explains that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.
Sukanya Holdings Put. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr AIR 2003 SC 2252: This case discusses the scope and limitations of referring a matter to arbitration if only some of the parties to a dispute are party to an arbitration agreement.
Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance (2011) 5 SCC 532: This case clarifies which kinds of disputes are arbitrable.
Shin Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 234: The Supreme Court held that at the pre-reference stage, the court must conduct a prima facie examination of the validity of the arbitration agreement.
