Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (3.73 seconds)
Documents citing Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwalla vs Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd. on 19 January, 1950

Ircon International Ltd vs M/S Pcl -Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd ... on 17 July, 2019

"... 5. It is familiar learning but requires emphasis that Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P.B. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd. MANU/WB/0245/1950 : AIR1951Cal230 and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs Ssangyong Engineering & Construction ... on 17 September, 2018

5. It is familiar learning but requires emphasis that Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P.B. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwalla v. Northern India Oil Industries Ltd. and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

M/S Sai Sun Outsourcing Services Pvt. ... vs Chief Engineer on 5 October, 2020

WP-9241-2020, WP-9267-2020, WP-9269-2020, WP-9272-2020, WP-9277-2020, WP-9279-2020 "5. It is familiar learning but requires emphasis that section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P.B. Mukhaiji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Nothem Indian Oil Industries Ltd., AIR 1951 Calcutta 230 and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Cheruvu Mahalaxmi Wd/O Shri ... vs The Secretary, To The Govt. Of India, ... on 26 November, 2021

"5. It is familiar learning but requires emphasis that Section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P. B. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Ebrahim Kassam Chochinwall v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd. AIR 1951 Cal 230 and we are of the opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 3 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Ashwani Kumar vs Banwari Lal And Ors. on 1 November, 1988

In Haji Ebrahim Kasam's case, (AIR 1951 Cal 230) the applicant Haji Embrahim Kasam had made a motion asking to set aside award dt. July 22. 1949 and filed on Aug. 20, 1949. During the course of arguments, counsel for the applicant' had advanced a submission that the Arbitrator omitted to file necessary documents with the award. That was a ground which was not taken at all in the petition to set aside the award and it was an attempt to add new grounds. As the ground was not taken in the petition, counsel for the applicant filed an affidavit of Abdul Gaffar on Dec. 21, 1949 and during the course of the hearing, on the basis of new affidavit applied to set aside the award on the ground stated therein. It was held that Article 158 of the old Limitation Act provided that the application for setting aside the award must be made within 30 days from the date of the notice of the filing of the award. On Dec. 21, 1949 when the affidavit was affirmed stating the new ground in an application made therein, that was treated as a new application and the same was held to be clearly barred by time.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Romesh Kumar Rajgharia on 19 February, 1974

Hazi Ebrahim Kassani Cochinwalla v. Northern India Oil Industries Ltd., was cited by the counsel for the respondent in support of the proposition that a petitioner in an application for setting aside an award could not travel beyond the grounds urged in the petition. In the said case the ground that the arbitrator omitted to file necessary documents with the award was not taken in the petition filed for setting aside the award. The said ground was sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of allegations made in an affidavit filed in the court at the time of hearing. Such ground was not allowed to be taken.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next