Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

All. HC: Juris. While Dealing With S.34 App. Can’t be Disputed by Party Filing S.9 App. in One Court - (22 May 2024)

ARBITRATION

All. HC has held that if a party has filed an application under Section 9 of A&C Act, 1996 before one court then objection regarding territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised by the party in dealing with application arising out of same arbitration agreement in view of Section 42 of the Act.

Tags : ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT   TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION   ARBITRATION AGREEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved