Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 60 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Sivakama Sundari S Narayana S B Murthy on 26 August, 2011

M/S Golden Ceramic Works (P) Ltd Through ... vs M/S Simplex Casting Limited Through ... on 16 July, 2025

21. The effect of the aforesaid is that the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court [Computer Sciences Corpn. India (P) Ltd. v. Harishchandra Lodwal, 2005 SCC OnLine MP 338 : AIR 2006 MP 34] and the Himachal Pradesh High Court [Jasvinder Kaur v. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine HP 3904] is held to be not good in law while the views of the Delhi High Court [Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 511 : (2009) 159 DLT 579] , Kerala High Court [Maharashtra Apex Corpn. Ltd. v. Balaji G., 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 4039 : (2011) 4 KLJ 408] , Madras High Court [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1290 : (2011) 4 LW 745] , Rajasthan High Court [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Ram Sharan Gurjar, 2011 SCC OnLine Raj 2748 : (2012) 1 RLW 960] , Allahabad High Court [GE Money Financial Services Ltd. v. Mohd. Azaz, 2013 SCC OnLine All 13365 : (2013) 100 ALR 766] , Punjab and Haryana High Court [IndusInd Bank Ltd. v. Bhullar Transport Co., 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 21674 : (2013) 2 RCR (Civil) 550] and Karnataka High Court [Chandrashekhar v. Tata Motor Finance Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12146 : (2015) 1 AIR Kant R 261] reflect the correct legal position, for the reasons we have recorded aforesaid.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Transmission Corporation Of Andhra ... vs M/S.Equipment Conductors And Cables ... on 7 December, 2016

One of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate General is that in the absence of transfer of decree from Chandigarh Court to City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 40 of C.P.C., the award/decree is not executable. No doubt, a decree in a suit unless it is transferred under Section 40 of C.P.C. it is not executable in City Civil Court, Hyderabad. But here, it is only award. However, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly contended that award need not be transferred since it is not a decree in civil suit and drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of the High Court of Madras rendered in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari (referred supra), wherein it is held as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 71 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Sundaram Finance Ltd. Represented By ... vs Abdul Samad on 15 February, 2018

21. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari & Ors.13referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the Court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the Court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the arbitral tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the Court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 126 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs Divinet Access Technologies Ltd. on 22 December, 2025

"19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Sivakama Sundari referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed 3 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 1290 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 20:40:49 ::: 1-WP-5643-2022.docx primarily by the court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers."
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Highway Authority Of India And ... vs Yashpreet Singh And Ors on 30 September, 2022

"19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the court for the purposes of execution, and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 2 - R M Singh - Full Document

Haryana State Cooperative Supply And ... vs National Collateral Management ... on 18 August, 2023

19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the Court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the Court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the arbitral tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the Court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next