Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Robust Hotels(P) Ltd.& Ors vs E.I.H Limited & Ors on 7 December, 2016

Reliance Media Works Ltd vs B.R. Films on 11 July, 2018

131. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Jyoti Limited vs. E.I.H. Limited (supra) and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s.Watkins Mayor & Co. Vs. The Jullundur Electric Supply Company Limited, AIR 1955 P & H 133 relied upon on this issue by the learned senior counsel for 76 ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2018 01:25:54 ::: arbp1333-12.doc the respondent thus would not assist the case of the respondent.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Unknown vs M/S Integrated Finance Company [Madras ... on 30 November, 2020

9. The learned counsel for the applicant placed much reliance in Robust Hotels(P) Ltd.& Others vs E.I.H Limited & Others [2017 SCC (1) 622] wherein the Apex Court has held that a party to the lis or the third party who considers an order passed by a court as voidable or non est, must approach the court of competent jurisdiction to have the said order set-aside on such grounds, as may be available in law. In the above case after considering the facts of the case the Honourble Apex Court has held that the BAR of civil court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act will not apply to the facts of the above case. It is no doubt that any person ignores or violates the order passed by the Court deliberately, any action pursuant to such violations cannot be sustained in the eye of law. But the fact remains in this case either EARCL or the Auction Purchaser were not made as a party in the application. Much after obtaining the Interim Order, EARCL and the Auction Purchaser were impleaded in O.A.No.630 of 2020, which clearly indicates that the application lacks bonafide. At any event, considering the scope of Section 9 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the interim orders cannot Page 9 / 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.A.No.630 of 2020 and A.No.49 of 2021 and A.Nos.6555 of 2018, 2827, 2828 of 2020 be extended endlessly and the same cannot be converted as perfectual one which in fact will defeat the scope and object of the Act. In view of the same, the Original Application in O.A.No.630 of 2020 stands dismissed. A.No.49 of 2021 is allowed. It is open to the Award Holder namely the applicant herein to seek all their remeides which are available under Order 21 of C.P.C.to realise their debts and this Order will not preclude the applicant seeking any relief from the competent court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document
1