Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.07 seconds)
Documents citing National Highways Authority Of India ... vs China Coal Construction Group Corpn. on 23 January, 2006

M/S Shin Satellite Public Company ... vs M/S Jain Studios Limited on 3 October, 2008

(ix) The power under Section 9 to grant interim relief is available to the Court while under Section 17, such powers to make interim measures are made available to the Arbitral Tribunal. Even though there may be some degree of overlap between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend to the pre and post award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the nature of the orders which the Court is empowered to pass. Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the Court of its power to make an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute [Ref. 2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 168 : 2006 (87) DRJ 225 : AIR 2006 Delhi 134 : 2006 (127) DLT 766, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.].
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shin Satellite Public Company ... vs M/S Jain Studios Limited on 3 October, 2008

(ix) The power under Section 9 to grant interim relief is available to the Court while under Section 17, such powers to make interim measures are made available to the Arbitral Tribunal. Even though there may be some degree of overlap between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend to the pre and post award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the nature of the orders which the Court is empowered to pass. Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the Court of its power to make an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute [Ref. 2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 168 : 2006 (87) DRJ 225 : AIR 2006 Delhi 134 : 2006 (127) DLT 766, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.].
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

M/S Shin Satellite Public Company ... vs M/S Jain Studios Limited on 3 October, 2008

(ix) The power under Section 9 to grant interim relief is available to the Court while under Section 17, such powers to make interim measures are made available to the Arbitral Tribunal. Even though there may be some degree of overlap between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend to the pre and post award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the nature of the orders which the Court is empowered to pass. Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the Court of its power to make an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute [Ref. 2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 168 : 2006 (87) DRJ 225 : AIR 2006 Delhi 134 : 2006 (127) DLT 766, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.].
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Gvk Airport Holdings Limited vs Bid Services Division (Mauritius) ... on 1 July, 2019

(ix) The power under Section 9 to grant interim relief is available to the Court while under Section 17, such powers to make interim measures are made available to the Arbitral Tribunal. Even though there may be some degree of overlap between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend to the pre and post award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the nature of the orders which the Court is empowered to pass. Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the Court of its power to make an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute [Ref. 2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 168 : 2006 (87) DRJ 225 : AIR 2006 Delhi 134, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.]
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. vs Aes Aerospace Ltd. on 22 April, 2008

In National Highways Authority of India v. China Coal Construction Group Corporation (supra), I had occasion to, inter alia, consider the questions as to whether an intervenor can be imp leaded as a party in a petition under Section 9 of the said Act 'And, as to whether such an intervenor would be entitled to seek clarification of an order passed by the court on such a petition' In answer to the said questions, it was found that the intervenor in that case had no privity of contract with the petitioner, nor was the intervenor a party to the arbitration proceedings. It was observed that Section 9 of the said Act is with reference to arbitral proceedings and just as the intervenor cannot be a party in the arbitral proceedings pending between the parties thereto, he would have no locus standi in the proceedings under Section 9 of the said Act. It was also noted that the interim orders that may be passed under Section 9 or Section 17 are with reference to the parties to the arbitration and in connection with the subject- matter thereof. The intervenor's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was, in that case, disallowed on these grounds. The said decision clearly demonstrates that a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot seek a variation of an order passed under Section 9 of the said Act. Moreover, the order that is passed under Section 9 of the said Act is one which is in respect of and in connection with the subject-matter of an arbitration agreement, which in this case happens to be movable goods which are lying in the warehouse of M/s Sagar Warehousing Corporation. The order that has been passed is not one which is against M/s Fly Jac Forwarders Transporters or M/s Sagar Warehousing Corporation, but is one which has been passed for the preservation and interim custody of the said goods as an interim measure of protection.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Essar Oil Limited vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 20 November, 2014

(ix) The   power   under   Section   9   to   grant   interim   relief   is   available   to   the   Court   while   under   Section   17,   such   powers   to   make   interim   measures   are   made   available   to   the   Arbitral   Tribunal.   Even   though   there   may   be   some   degree   of   overlap   between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9   are   much   wider   inasmuch   as   they   extend   to   the   pre   and   post   award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the   nature   of   the   orders   which   the   Court   is   empowered   to   pass.   Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the   Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the Court of its power to make   an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute [Ref.   2006 (3) AD (Delhi) 168 : 2006 (87) DRJ 225 : AIR 2006 Delhi   134 : 2006 (127) DLT 766, National Highways Authority of India   (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.].
Gujarat High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 4 - M R Shah - Full Document

M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. vs National Highways Authority Of India & ... on 8 May, 2009

35. It is further argued that the judgment relied upon by the respondent in the matter of National Highway Authority of India vs. China Coal Construction Group Corporation; 127(2006)DLT766, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, this Court denied the intervener from being impleaded as a party to the Section 9 Application on the ground that the intervener had no privy to the arbitration agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 18 - M Singh - Full Document

Modi Rubber Ltd. vs Guardian International Corp. on 28 March, 2007

(ix) The power under Section 9 to grant interim relief is available to the court while under Section 17, such powers to make interim measures are made available to the Arbitral Tribunal. Even though there may be some degree of overlap between the two provisions, however, the powers under Section 9 are much wider inasmuch as they extend to the pre and post award period as well as with regard to the subject matter and the nature of the orders which the court is empowered to pass. Therefore, pendency of an application under Section 17 before the Arbitral Tribunal does not denude the court of its power to make an order for interim measures under Section 9 of the statute. (Ref: National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) v. China Coal Construction Group Co.)
Delhi High Court Cites 104 - Cited by 21 - G Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next