Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing Uttam Singh Dugal And Co. Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel ... on 30 September, 1981

Liberty Shoes Limited vs Harish Kumar Gupta And Anr. on 10 October, 2006

17A. In my opinion, the impugned order is not an interim award. The terms "award" or "arbitral award" have not been defined in the General Clauses Act, 1897. In the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, though the term "arbitral award" has been defined but the definition is only an inclusive definition, that is to say, the arbitral award includes an interim award. It is also to be seen that the term "interim award" has not been defined in the Act. Therefore, definition of interim award is to be found elsewhere. Their Lordships in Uttam Singh Duggal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. and in Anand Parkash v. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies AIR 1968 Allahabad 22, held that an order in the nature of the impugned order cannot be termed as an interim award. I am in agreement with the observations in the aforesaid cases in holding that the impugned order is not an interim award.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Deepak Mitra vs District Judge, Allahabad And Others on 5 July, 1999

Arbitral Tribunal must determine some part of the disputes referred to it. A reference may be made to the case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1982 MP 206, in which it was observed that before an order of the arbitrators may be held to be an interim award, it must decide a part of the claim or an issue of liability. What the arbitrators did in that case was to decide a preliminary issue relating to their jurisdiction. As the order of the arbitrators does not decide the claim or even any part of the claim of any issue of liability, it cannot be held to be an interim award. To elucidate the point, a concrete example may be cited. In a dispute relating to right of easement with respect to discharge of water, an Arbitral Tribunal may make an interim award and direct that the water shall not be discharged or shall be discharged in a particular manner till the rights of the parties are finally determined by the award. Similarly, in a dispute about the partition of property, an Arbitral Tribunal may allot a particular property to a party by an interim award and adjust the value thereof in its final award. Interim award is virtually intended to be in the nature of a preliminary decree. An interim arbitral award, therefore, would be as much liable to be set aside as the final arbitral award and the provisions of Section 34 of the Act may be invoked for the purpose. This inescapable conclusion has been drawn on the basis of the definition of arbitral award contained in Section 2(1)(c). Sri J. Nagar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents appeared to be of the view that an award, and for that matter, an interim award means a judicial decision and that a decision is nothing but a determination arrived at after consideration of the facts and, in legal context, law. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the meaning of the expressions 'award' and the 'decision', as given in 'Legal Thesaurus by William C. Burlon'. Deluxe Edition ; 'The Universal Dictionary of the English Language' compiled by Henry Cecil Wyld, and Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition. Every judicial decision or order during the course of arbitration proceedings cannot be treated as an interim award.
Allahabad High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Foods Fats & Fertilisers Ltd. vs Ramkishandas Radhakishan on 9 April, 1985

8. Reliance has been placed on the case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Private Ltd. New Delhi v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Project, 1982 MPLJ 598 : (AIR 1982 Madh Pra 206) for the proposition that an order made under Section 33 of the Act pronouncing upon the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement is not appealable under Section 39(1)(i) of the Arbitration Act. In the said case, since no award was passed, the High Court observed that it was an order under Section 33 simpliciter. It is relevant to mention that in that case the observation was : --
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. T.T. Limited vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 21 October, 2008

33. Courts are normally reluctant to strike down commercial contracts on the ground of uncertainty unless the terms cannot be ascertained. In commercial contracts a narrow pedantic approach is not warranted and a fair and a broad approach is adopted. The contract and the terms thereof have to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. Difficulties in ascertaining the term does not make the contract fatal and is not synonymous with uncertainty. Even when, there are gaps these can be bridged and filled up with reference to previous course of dealings between the parties, usual customs and practice and what is considered to be reasonable unless contractual terms are to the contrary or the exercise shall result in formation of a new contract or bar under Section 93 of the Evidence Act applies. Courts normally protect bargains and do not destroy them. It will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Uttam Singh Duggal and Company versus Hindustan Steel Ltd. CS(OS) No.944/2001 Page No.18 reported in AIR 1982 MP 206, wherein it has been stated :-
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - S Khanna - Full Document

Unison Hotels Pvt Ltd.,Delhi vs Acit, Range-27, New Delhi on 20 April, 2026

It is a settled law that nomenclature of the transaction is not relevant and the intention of the parties must be understood from the language they have used, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances and object of the contract (which can be oral). [Refer: M/S T.T. Ltd. v. Industrial Finance Corporation 2000 VII AD (Delhi) 146 (Delhi High Court), Bank of India v. K. Mohan Das, (2009) 5 SCC 313, Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bpl Mobile Cellular Ltd. 2008 (8) SCALE 106, Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. The State Of Gujarat 1975 AIR 32; M/S Uttam Singh Duggal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. AIR 1982 MP 206. (MP HC)].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asian Electronics Ltd. vs M.P. State Electricity Board on 15 December, 2006

10. Although an interim award is included in the definition of "arbitral award" contained in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, in order to treat the order dated 06.05.2006 (Annexure R/1) as an interim award it should fulfil the requisites of an award. The Division Bench decision in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai reported as has held "before an order of the arbitrators may be held to be an interim award, it must decide a part of the claim or an issue of liability. What the arbitrators did in this case was to decide a preliminary issue relating to their jurisdiction. As the order of the arbitrators does not decide the claim or even any part of the claim of any issue of liability, it cannot be held to be an interim award".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1