Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 717 (2.39 seconds)
Documents citing Dhulabhai And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another on 5 April, 1968

M/S Vatika One India Next Private ... vs Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited on 19 December, 2022

14.23. This is further indicated by the language of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which restricts and limits the power of the DRT to examine the actions as taken by the secured creditor, only to be in accordance with the SARFAESI Act and the Rules as made thereunder and not otherwise. If the intention of the legislature was to confer absolute and unfettered jurisdiction upon the DRT, vis-a-vis the ‗security interest', it would have laid down that all questions about any right or liability, of any nature whatsoever, which may arise in respect of the ‗security interest', even if raised by a stranger to the ‗security interest', which may be in respect of any civil rights as may be claimed therein, as available to any person, whether under a Statute or under the Civil Law, shall be determined by the Tribunal or authority constituted by it and provided the machinery to address, decide and enforce such right and not limited to examining such claim, to the limited extent as indicated above, of the action of the secured creditor, being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. [Ramalinga Samigal Madam (supra) explaining the second principle in Dhulabhai (supra)].‖
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Bhartho vs Khaddu (Died) Through Legal Heirs- on 22 October, 2024

5. The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided u/s 9 of the CPC but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts to try a civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii) whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it. In Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., it was noticed that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals, jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anisuddin And Anr vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors on 28 January, 2026

a. Dhulabhai (supra) -- reliance is placed to contend that even where a statute gives finality to the orders of a special tribunal, civil court jurisdiction is not excluded unless the tribunal can provide adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do, and that exclusion would not operate where statutory requirements are not complied with or where the tribunal acts contrary to fundamental judicial procedure.
Delhi District Court Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saurav Jain vs M/S A.B.P. Design on 5 August, 2021

In light of the aforesaid five reasons — a fortiori, the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to all the issues arising under the Act is held impliedly excluded thereby satisfying all the conditions set out in clause (1) of para 32 of Dhulabhai [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78].” (emphasis supplied) Thus, the Court summarised the conclusions as below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 15 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

M/S S. S. Con - Build Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority Through ... on 9 May, 2023

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to exclude arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil court or specifying the civil court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

S.S. Con-Build Pvt Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 9 May, 2023

53. Dhulabhai case [Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662 : AIR 1969 SC 78] is not directly applicable as it relates to exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts, albeit we respectfully agree with the order of reference [Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406] that Condition 2 is apposite while examining the question of non-arbitrability. Implied legislative intention to exclude arbitration can be seen if it appears that the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for determination of the right and liability to be dealt with by the specified courts or the tribunals specially constituted in that behalf and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the court or tribunals so empowered and vested with exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, mere creation of a specific forum as a substitute for civil court or specifying the civil court, may not be enough to accept the inference of implicit non-arbitrability. Conferment of jurisdiction on a specific court or creation of a public forum though eminently significant, may not be the decisive test to answer and decide whether arbitrability is impliedly barred.
Delhi High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Fakiro Dead Through Legal Heirs Gorango ... vs Jalsay And Others on 9 February, 2011

"5. The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts to try civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii) whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it. In Dhulabhai & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.,1968 (3) SCR 662, it was noticed that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunals jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure."
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next