Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.27 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Balaji Industrial Products Ltd vs Aia Engineering Ltd And Ors on 2 July, 2018

Pari Agro Exports vs Soufflet Alimentaire & Anr on 2 August, 2019

In Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited's case (supra), the bar under Section 8 of the Act of 2015 and remedy of appeal as provided under Section 13 of the Act of 2015 were 85 of 91 ::: Downloaded on - 25-08-2019 01:07:57 ::: CR No.6519 of 2018(O&M) 86 considered. It was held that powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked despite bar provided under Section 8 of the Act of 2015 if it could be shown that the Commercial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, committed a manifest error and gross injustice has been caused to the aggrieved party. This power has to be exercised very sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. [84].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document

Deepak Polymers Private Limited vs Anchor Investments Private Limited on 24 June, 2021

17. Learned counsel places reliance on Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited Vs. AIA Engineering Limited and Others, reported at MANU/RH/2035/2017 and also in 2018 (3) WLN 411 (Raj), to stress the argument that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited only to seeing that the subordinate court functions within the limits of its authority and does not extend to correction of mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re- appreciating it. Resort cannot be taken to Article 227 to circumvent the legislative intent to eschew challenges to interlocutory orders during the pendency of proceedings as provided for under the Act of 2015, where revisions are prohibited and challenges in miscellaneous appeals confined to orders of the Commercial Court a la orders which are appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 35 - Cited by 7 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited vs M/S Shree R.N Metals India Pvt Limited on 6 December, 2018

Apart from the fact that we do not find any extraordinary reason to entertain the writ petition in the light of the view taken by this court in its judgment in Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited Vs. AIA Engineering Limited and Others - 2018 (2) WLC (Raj.) 211, on merits also we do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the Commercial Court following many precedents, especially when it has by requiring the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded sum, directed its disbursement to respondents only on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court either by bank guarantee or FDR.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited vs M/S Shree R.N Metals India Pvt Limited on 6 December, 2018

Apart from the fact that we do not find any extraordinary reason to entertain the writ petition in the light of the view taken by this court in its judgment in Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited Vs. AIA Engineering Limited and Others - 2018 (2) WLC (Raj.) 211, on merits also we do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the Commercial Court following many precedents, especially when it has by requiring the petitioner to deposit 75% of the awarded sum, directed its disbursement to respondents only on furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court either by bank guarantee or FDR.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brij Lal Seth (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs vs M/S Haryana Steel Mongers Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 25 January, 2019

[2]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2019 07:53:20 ::: CR No.2554 of 2017(O&M) 2 impugned order can be assailed with the aid of Article 227 of the Constitution of India which has been discussed by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Shri Balaji Industrial Products Limited Vs. AIA Engineering Limited, through its authorized signatory Mr. Achyut C. Parikh, 2018(1) DNJ 114 and it was held that neither a revision petition under Section 8 of the Act of 2015, nor miscellaneous appeal under Section 13 of the Act is maintainable against the order of rejection of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the object of the Act of 2015 is to provide early resolution of commercial disputes and the appeals arising out of interlocutory orders have been curtailed. Even representations on the same issue of jurisdiction are prohibited. It is evident from reading of Section 8 of the Act itself that representations and challenges against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court are prohibited, inter alia on the issue of jurisdiction. Miscellaneous appeals arising out of orders of Commercial Court under Section 13(1) of the Act are limited to specified orders as contained in Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. It was also held that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be extended in routine manner as the same are meant to use very sparingly and in exceptional cases.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document
1