Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Sachin Gupta And Ors. vs K.S. Forge Metal Pvt. Ltd. on 4 September, 2012

Suvidha Infracon Pvt Ltd vs Intec Capital Limited on 11 September, 2018

"2. We are satisfied that the High Court [Sachin Gupta v. K.S. Forge Metal (P) Ltd., FAO (OS) No. 539 of 2012, order dated 7-11-2012 (Del)] could have set aside the award only on the ground that the award has been rendered against the respondent without issuance OMP(COMM.) 12/2018 Page 4 of any notice and without hearing the respondent. On this ground alone, the award was liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996..... However, we agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the award had to be set aside as no notice had been served on the respondent....."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - N Chawla - Full Document

Jamboo Kumar Jain And Anr vs Tata Capital Financial Services ... on 17 February, 2015

15. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sachin Gupta and another vs. K.S.Forge Metal Private Limited (2013) 10 SCC 540 and in particular paragraph (2) and it is submitted that since the learned arbitrator has rendered an award without issuing any notice and without hearing the petitioner, the award is liable to be set aside under section 34(2) (a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Paragraph (2) of the said judgment of the ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2015 21:11:05 ::: Kvm 11/28 ARBP685.12 Supreme Court reads thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Prabhash Chandra Chaturvedi vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance Limited on 28 November, 2018

10. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sachin Gupta's case (cited supra) is also not applicable to the present case, as, in that case too, an exparte Award was passed without issuance of any notice and without hearing the Respondent therein. But, in the case on hand, all possible steps have been taken to serve notice on the Borrower and the Guarantors.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

M/S. G.D. Traders vs M/S. Intec Capital Ltd on 7 September, 2019

08. There can be no dispute to the proposition that in case notice is not served, the award is liable to be set aside as held in Sachin Gupta (Supra). On facts it cannot be said that notices were not served. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that tracking report only shows that articles/notice was delivered "Rohini Sector 7 S.O.". The arguments appear to be attractive however, cannot be believed as the award was also sent at the same address through Speed post, the tracking report in respect of the award was also filed which also shows that item was delivered at "Rohini Sector 7 S.O.". The petitioner has stated in his objection petition that he had received the copy of the award only through courier. The record of the arbitrator does not reveal that it was sent through courier. The petitioners are making incorrect statements and taking false grounds. The petitioners have been unable to rebut the presumption. Thus the objection of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that notices were not served is meritless and is liable to be rejected.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Ravi Builders vs Union Of India, Through Executive ... on 4 August, 2025

(i) Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, AIR 2005 SC 1832; (ii) State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. M/s. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2011 SC 1374; (iii) Sachin Gupta & Anr. Vs. K.S. Forge Metal Private Limited, (2013) 10 SCC 540 and (iv) Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs. M/s. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (7) SCC 657, are of no benefit for the facts and circumstances of the present case noted herein-above.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document
1