Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Sharad Chandra Agrawal vs Hemant Kumar Agrawal on 22 June, 2022

Alok Kumar Lodha vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Ram Krishan Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Ajay Kumar Rastogi vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Shaw Art Palace vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Maharani Of India vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Tehmina Sen vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

V.P.Sachdev vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Mr. Farooq Ahmed & Anr. vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Crafto vs Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. & Ors. on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Sultan Ahmed vs Asian Hotels (North) Limited on 20 December, 2023

8. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs has broadly raised two objections in opposing the present applications. Firstly, it is submitted that the subject matter of the suits, is per se non-arbitrable. It is submitted that the present suits seek a declaration in rem regarding the subject shops, which would involve determining the status or title of an individual with respect to the property, binding all third parties who currently have or may in the future have an interest in the premises. Such declarations can only be granted by courts, as they are binding on not only interested third parties who may have an interest in the same property but also on the general public. It is also submitted that all declaratory reliefs do not fall under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the present suits involve determination of plaintiffs' rights as an owner or irrevocable licensee, which can only be in rem and therefore directly fall within the non-arbitrable categories of disputes as laid down in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. 1, R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul- Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid 2, Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh3, Sharad v. Hemant Kumar4, Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 5 and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn6. It is further submitted that even though the judgment in Himangni Enterprises v.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document
1   2 3 Next