Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Vishanji Dungarmal Futnani vs Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani And Ors. on 24 December, 1987

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs W. Doraisamy on 9 January, 1995

In Vishanji D. Futani vs. Mohanlal (1994) 2 LW 289, in our attempt to give the correct meaning to the expression "fixed place of abode" in s. 270 of the Indian Succession Act, we passed through the meaning of "abode", "dwelling", "place of dwelling", "residence", "domicile", etc., in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, some judgments of the Courts in England, the High Courts in India and the judgments of the Supreme Court and noticed the most expressive definition of the word "residence" in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, volume IV, page 2030 :
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajwant Singh vs Avtar Singh on 20 January, 2012

20. However, from the perusal of the judgments Vishanji Dungarmal Futnani's case (supra), and Sowaran Singh's case (supra), in both these authorities it has been laid down that Arbitrator themselves cannot enlarge the time for making Award. The proviso 2 of Section 28 of the Act clearly shows that Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to extend the period of Award except with the consent of the parties. However, the trial Court has not taken into account clause (1) of Section 28 of the Act vide which the Court has been empowered to enlarge the time even after making the Award. The parliament in its wisdom has enacted the Arbitration Act, 1940 and thereafter Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to provide speedy remedy to the parties to settle their commercial disputes. The Civil Courts are over burdened due to heavy dockets on that account. The Civil cases could not be decided at an early date. There can be number of reasons Civil Revision No.3665 of 2003 8 for late disposal of civil cases. So, keeping in view that objective in the mind, the above said Arbitration Act were enacted. Once the parties have chosen that their disputes should be decided by the Arbitrator, in that case, the Court should put least restraint in deciding the matter by putting hurdle except where the Arbitrator has misconducted or there are reason prescribed for setting aside the Award within the frame work of those acts.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K C Puri - Full Document
1