Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 233 (4.59 seconds)

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

During hearing learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh mainly contended that the amended provisions of Act 3 of 2016 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has no retrospective effect and it applies only to the Arbitration proceedings initiated after the commencement of the amended provisions of Arbitration Act i.e. on or after 23.10.2015. As the amended provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act came into force from 23.10.2015, there is deemed stay of operation of award during pendency of the appeal in view of Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad without considering the effect of amended provisions, entertained the E.P.No.33 of 2016 and issued garnishee order for Rs.8,22,52,239/- by directing the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad (in respect of account No.52077965102 and 52077969912) and Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Khairatabad (in respect of account No.000805008881) to pay the attached amount from the said accounts to the credit of E.P. He also drawn the attention of this Court to several judgments in support of his contentions, more particularly the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd , Thirumalai Chemicals Limited v. Union of India , unreported judgments of High Court of Calcutta in Electrosteel Castings Limited v. Reacon Engineers (India) Private Limited (AP No.1710 of 2015), Sri Nitya Ranjan Jena v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. (G.A.No.145 of 2016 with A.P.No.15 of 2016) and unreported judgment of High Court of Delhi in Ministry of Defence, Government of India v. CENREX SP. Z.O.O. and Ors (O.M.P.No.408 of 2007) to contend that the amended provisions would not take away the substantial right that accrued to the petitioner by the amendment to Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act with effect from 23.10.2015 and such interpretation would render the pre-amended provisions redundant and thereby there is deemed stay of execution of award, if any, passed by the Council in view of the pendency of application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Chandigarh and such substantive right that accrued to the petitioner would not be taken away by amended Act 3 of 2016 since the proceedings were initiated much prior to the commencement of amendment and the application filed under Section 34 is continuation of earlier proceedings, thereby as on today there is, absolutely, no executable award, consequently, the impugned garnishee order passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is liable to be set aside.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 71 - Cited by 1 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Imax Corporation vs E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited ... on 13 November, 2019

This sentence does not lead to the 14 2018(6) Bom.C.R. 529 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2019 03:04:20 ::: 29 carbp 414-18 conclusion, following the judgment in Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (1999) 9 SCC 334, that under the 1996 Act, a foreign award is considered to be stamped already. All that this sentence means is that the foreign award is to be regarded as a decree. The expression "stamped" means "regarded". This judgment also does not carry us much further."
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Noy Vallesina Engineering Spa A ... vs Jindal Drugs Limited, A Company ... on 5 June, 2006

In my opinion, the judgment in Thyssen GMBH (supra) cannot be so read considering the express language of Section 49 of the Act of 1996. The Foreign Award continues to remain an award in the country. It is deemed to be a decree only when the Court to which the application is made for enforcement of the foreign award is satisfied that the Foreign Award is enforceable. To my mind therefore, objection under Section 22 of the SIC(SP) Act,1985 must be rejected.

Air I Ltd., vs Assessee

35. The second decision relied by the assessee is in the case of Thyseen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel authority of India Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 3923. In this case the Hon'ble Court laid down that section 85(2)(a) of the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 saves the operation of the old Act. The Court further held that foreign awards given after the date of the commencement of the new Act, 1996, can be enforced under the new Act. It further held that the fact that the arbitration proceedings had commenced in U.K. prior to the commencement of the new Act, cannot save the operation of the Foreign Awards Act, 1961. At para 48 and 49 it observed as follows :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saraf Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Federal Agencies For State Property ... on 24 March, 2017

This in my opinion would render Section 26 free from ambiguity. SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS a. The draftsman took into account the case of Thyseen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 334 while drafting Section 26. Hence, in the first limb he consciously used the words 'to' arbitral proceedings and not "in relation to arbitral proceedings". This was to dispel any notion created on an interpretation of Thyseen that the words "in relation to arbitral proceedings" would relate to arbitral reference as well as court proceedings. By use of the word 'to' in the first limb of Section 26 the legislature meant reference to arbitration proceedings before the learned Arbitrator. Section 21 and Section 32 of the Act support this interpretation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 3 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

Order vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd on 10 February, 2010

14. However the learned Senior counsel for the respondent would put forth and set forth his argument that had the proposition of law stood as above, then the matter would have been different, but the Honourable Apex Court in various other subsequent cases took a different view, even though there is no express indication in those subsequent judgements that the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Thyssen's case was over ruled.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next