Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs Dinesh Kumar Agarwal on 5 May, 2022

Himanshu Cooperative Group Housing ... vs Chief Administrator Huda And Ors on 28 October, 2022

In view of Swadesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 556, the aggrieved party has to approach the concerned Court defined under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming subject matter of arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a civil suit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Union Of India vs Reliance Industries Ltd And Ors & Ors. on 9 December, 2022

19. Apart from the aforenoted two decisions rendered by this Court on the question, Mr. Ganguli also placed reliance upon the following observations as appearing in the decision of the O.M.P.(T) (COMM.) 125/2022 Page 18 of 39 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:09.12.2022 13:34:29 Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005381 Supreme Court in Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal7:-
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs Third Rock Consultants Private Limited on 27 January, 2023

3. As noted in the said order, however, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present petition in this Court on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is the admitted position that the dispute in the arbitration involves a sum of approximately ₹32 lakhs, whereas the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court is only in respect of disputes of a value of ₹2 crores or more. Mr. Gupta submits that the "Court" referred in Section 14(2) of the Act must be ascertained with reference to the definition in Section 2(1)(e) thereof, which would render the present petition maintainable before the District Court, and not this Court. He relies in this connection upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal1.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P Jalan - Full Document

Mr. A. L. Muthiah vs M/S. Millennia Realtors Pvt Ltd on 28 November, 2022

7. When the parties have not agreed upon a procedure for appointment as aforesaid and the 10 arbitration agreement contemplates a sole Arbitrator, or because of the provisions of Section 102 there must be a sole arbitrator, an application could be filed under Section 11[5] but there must be request by the party who seeks constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal to the other to agree on the Arbitrator, and if the parties fail to agree within thirty [30] days from the date of receipt of such request. A useful reference in this regard could be made to the following paragraph in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadesh Kumar Agarwal v. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors. etc.3:
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - B M Prasad - Full Document

R.Saravanan vs Sakthivel on 28 February, 2023

In support of this contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swadesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others, (2022) 10 SCC 235(Swadesh Kumar Agarwal), particularly paragraph 22 thereof, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act should be filed before the ''Court'' as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. He also relies upon paragraph 23 of the judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is maintainable to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator and substitute such arbitrator. 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next