Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing F. Liansanga vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2022

Vardhaman Builders vs Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge on 19 December, 2023

In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of F.Liansanga & Anr vs Union of India & Ors.14 19 Mr. Khandeparkar then submitted that the doctrine of merger does not apply to Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. He submitted that the proceedings under Section 34, after an Arbitral Award is passed, are not proceedings which 14 SLP (Civil) Nos. 32875-32876 of 2018 LGC 20 of 33 ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 04:11:45 ::: 21 COMAP-92.23 .doc are in continuation of the Arbitral Proceedings. He submitted that unlike the Appeal, in a Petition under Section 34, the Court can either set aside an Arbitral Award or part thereof or then dismissed the Arbitration Petition. It cannot pass a decree or allow a claim which has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vardhaman Builders vs Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge on 19 December, 2023

In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of F.Liansanga & Anr vs Union of India & Ors.14 19 Mr. Khandeparkar then submitted that the doctrine of merger does not apply to Section 34 or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. He submitted that the proceedings under Section 34, after an Arbitral Award is passed, are not proceedings which 14 SLP (Civil) Nos. 32875-32876 of 2018 LGC 20 of 33 ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 04:11:51 ::: 21 COMAP-92.23 .doc are in continuation of the Arbitral Proceedings. He submitted that unlike the Appeal, in a Petition under Section 34, the Court can either set aside an Arbitral Award or part thereof or then dismissed the Arbitration Petition. It cannot pass a decree or allow a claim which has been rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. G Ramachandiran vs Smt. R Mallikamma on 28 October, 2022

9. Sri. T.N.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, supports the impugned order 3 AIR 1980 SC 1664 -9- relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in F. Liansanga Vs. Union of India4. He submits that this decision is an authority for the proposition that the provisions of Section 5 of the Act 1963 cannot be invoked to condone the delay in filing a suit which is time barred. He relies upon the circumstances enumerated by the civil Court to contend that the suit, in either circumstance i.e., if the time is reckoned from the expiry of period agreed for completion of the transaction or on the expiry of the period mentioned by the plaintiff for repayment of the amount paid under the agreement, is ex-facie barred by limitation. He also argues that the petitioner, who is categorical even in the plaint that the suit is beyond the limitation period and therefore the delay must be condoned, cannot gainsay that the suit is ex-facie barred.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document
1