Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Bhawarlal Bhandari vs Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting ... on 4 December, 1998

Kailash Nath Gupta Son Of Sri Jagannath ... vs Brij Mohan Son Of Sheetla Prasad And Ors. on 19 April, 2007

16. The said authority has been noticed in Bhawarlal Bhandarl v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises (Supra). However, in the latter authority objection regarding limitation was not permitted to be raised for the reason that when award was filed (after about 4 years) the aggrieved party did not file any objection and award was made Rule of the Court. Afterwards when decree passed on the basis of the award was put in execution, the aggrieved party raised the objection pertaining to bar of limitation in filing original award and award being mock and not intended to be acted upon. The Supreme Court held that in execution said objections could not be raised and such questions could be considered if they had been raised in the proceedings which initiated on the filing of award for making the award Rule of the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dr. Ramesh C. Vaish And Ors. vs Banwarilal Jaipuria And Ors. on 6 April, 1999

lity. The learned Counsel submits that like a declaratory decree, declaratory award can also be passed and as the executing Court cannot go behind the decree the only remedy of the person in whose favour such declaration has been made is to file a suit. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Potti Venkata Kasi Viswanadham v. Vallabha Vyas, ; Shyam Charan v. Satya Prasad, reported in AIR 1923 Cal 252; Meghram Shah v. Rajabansi Lal, ; Rajasthan S.R.T.C. v. Ladulal Mali, ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mangilal Sharma, and Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal H.M.L. Enterprises, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

State Of J And K And Ors. vs Gh. Mohammad Khuroo on 19 May, 2004

19. A more direct authority is to be found in the case of Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, (1999) 1 SCC 558. In that case, award dated 17-4-1985 was filed in the court on 23-3-1989 by the arbitrator. Notice was issued but no objection was filed. The court made the award rule of the court and award decree was passed on 2-6-1989. At the stage of execution it was argued on behalf of the judgment debtor that proceeding in court was time barred on account of late filing of the award by the arbitrator and hence the award decree was a nullity. Two points were formulated for consideration - (a) whether the award decree dated 2-6-1989 was a nullity being barred by limitation, and (b) whether the executing court can go behind the decree. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court observed:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next