Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.30 seconds)
Documents citing Mangayarkarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Sundaram Finance Ltd., Pattullos Road, ... on 30 April, 2002

National Buildings Construction ... vs Antia Electricals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 9 May, 2003

This view, however, has not been followed by Division Bench of Madras High Court and taking contrary view in the case of Mangayarkarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of Madras High Court differed with aforesaid view of Bombay High Court. The relevant discussion of the Madras High Court in the aforesaid judgment is in the following terms :
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. And Ors. vs Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorthy ... on 13 May, 2005

Considering the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1996 it is submitted that the main objective of the Legislature was to minimise the supervisory role of the Courts in the arbitral process, and considering the provisions of Section 16 of the Act there is an adequate and proper remedy provided to have the arbitral award set aside under Section 34 of the Act. It is further submitted that considering the scheme of the Act more particularly Section 16 of the Act if the Arbitral Tribunal holds that it has jurisdiction such an order cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction at that stage and such an order can be challenged only in the manner laid down in sub-section (5) and (6) of Section 16 i.e. after the proceedings are over and the award is made. Therefore, it is requested not to entertain the present Special Civil Applications.
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - M R Shah - Full Document

Shriram Investment Services Limited, ... vs Palki/Jeypad Investment(P) ... on 16 May, 2006

13. In view of the above said order passed by the majority of the arbitrators presiding over the Arbitral Tribunal, it is evident that they decided to continue the proceedings referred to therein on the ground that the reasons for coming to such conclusion would be pronounced in the final award of the Tribunal later. Therefore the learned senior counsel for the respondents has cited the decision Mangayakarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Sundaram Finance Ltd. (2002 (3) R.A.J. 212 (MAD) in support of his further contention that in a similar case, this Court rendered the judgment that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in a private arbitration is not maintainable and that the High Court is not justified in exercising the power of judicial review or superintendence of such orders passed by the non-statutory arbitral tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - T V Masilamani - Full Document

Shriram Investment vs Palki/Jeypad on 16 May, 2006

13. In view of the above said order passed by the majority of the arbitrators presiding over the Arbitral Tribunal, it is evident that they decided to continue the proceedings referred to therein on the ground that the reasons for coming to such conclusion would be pronounced in the final award of the Tribunal later. Therefore the learned senior counsel for the respondents has cited the decision MANGAYAKARASI APPARELS PVT. LTD v. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD (2002 (3) R.A.J. 212 ( MAD) in support of his further contention that in a similar case, this Court rendered the judgment that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in a private arbitration is not maintainable and that the High Court is not justified in exercising the power of judicial review or superintendence of such orders passed by the nonstatutory arbitral tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - T V Masilamani - Full Document

The Board Of Trustees Of The vs M/S.X Press Container Line (Uk) Ltd on 9 October, 2007

In this context, learned senior counsel for respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the facts of the case Mangayakarasi Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra), to show that in that case also, the revision was preferred as against the order of rejection of memo by one of the arbitrators appointed under the commercial transaction between the parties therein in terms of the bilateral hire purchase agreement entered into between them and therefore he has argued and in my opinion rightly that here in this case also, the rejection of the contention raised by the revision petitioner by the majority of Arbitral Tribunal in the impugned communication cannot be questioned by means of this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It follows that the revision petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - P P Raja - Full Document

Awasthi Construction Co. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 16 October, 2012

In this regard it may be noticed that the Madras High Court in Mangayarkarasi Apparels P. Ltd. v. Sundaram Finance Ltd. MANU/TN/0504/2002 has disagreed with Anuptech Equipments Private Ltd. and held that the arbitral tribunal is not "other authority" within the meaning of Article 226 and writ remedy against the orders of the arbitral tribunal is not available.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 11 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs M/S.Jyothi Turbopower Services ...

17.The Arbitral Tribunal has also made a reference to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mangayarkarasi Apparels (P) Ltd. vs. Sundaram Finance Ltd., 2002 (2) CTC 585, opining that the expression ''other authority'' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not include an Arbitral Tribunal and thus, the remedy either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of an Arbitral Tribunal would not be available.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next