Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. vs M/S. Arvind Construction Company Ltd. on 29 May, 2009

Bharat Construction Co Ltd vs Engineering Project India Ltd on 19 October, 2022

In view of the submissions made above, the arbitration Case No.122 of 2017 "Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Construction Co. Ltd.)" and transfer Case No.123 of 2017 "Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Construction Co. Ltd.)" pending in the Court of the learned ADJ, South East -01, Saket Court is withdrawn and assigned to the Court of the learned Principal Judge District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for assigning it to the court of competent jurisdiction in New Delhi District.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Shalimar Estates P Limited vs Reliance Retail Limited And Another on 21 December, 2018

13 of 22 ::: Downloaded on - 18-03-2019 04:05:26 ::: CR No.7262 of 2018(O&M) 14 [20]. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by referring to CR No.2237 of 2010 titled Union of India Vs. M/s Harbans Singh Tuli & Sons decided on 17.12.2013, P.S.L Ramanathan Chettiar and others Vs. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar, 1968 AIR (SC) 1047, Haryana Engineering and Foundry Works and another Vs. Union of India and others, 1998(76) DLT 947, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Arvind Construction Company Ltd., 2009(24) RCR (Civil) 276 and Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Vs. Harbans Lal Gupta, 2008(21) RCR (Civil) 839 contended that the petitioner is entitled to interest inspite of release of amount deposited in the Court, because respondents were instrumental in opposing the applications for withdrawal of amount filed by the petitioner before passing of order dated 07.04.2017. The petitioner being the decree holder-cum-beneficiary of award cannot be precluded from enjoying the fruits of interest on awarded amount from 05.02.2013 till its deposit in FDR. [21].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Mittal & Anr. vs M/S Kiri Associates (P) Ltd on 13 November, 2017

17. Similarly, reliance of the judgment debtor on the judgment of this Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Arvind Construction Company Ltd. MANU/DE/0744/2009 would be of no relevance to the facts of the present case. In fact, this Court, in the above judgment has held that the payment made for obtaining a stay of the decree before the Appellate Court cannot be said to be an amount paid under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure towards satisfaction of the decree. Payment under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC satisfies a decree holder whereas a deposit in the Court to avoid execution keeps the amount beyond the reach of the decree holder and leaves him waiting for its release. In the present case, this is exactly the factual position.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - N Chawla - Full Document

National Agro Seed Corporation India vs Ms National Seeds Corporation Limited on 5 August, 2024

17. Similarly, reliance of the judgment debtor on the judgment of this Court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. v. Arvind Construction Company Ltd. would be of no relevance to the facts of the present case. In fact, this Court, in the above judgment has held that the payment made for obtaining a stay of the decree before the Appellate Court cannot be said to be an amount paid under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure towards satisfaction of the decree. Payment under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC satisfies a decree holder whereas a deposit in the Court to avoid This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Samla Devi & Ors. on 23 March, 2010

In that view of the matter, the appellant is liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the said period in terms of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Haryana Engineering & Foundry Water vs. UOI, 1998(47) DRJ 172; MANU/DE/1171/1998, Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhai Sardar Singh & Sons, 158(2009) DLT; 2009(109) DRJ 384 and M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd. vs. Arvind Construction Co. Ltd., MANU/DE/0744/2009.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Natraj Construction Company on 1 May, 2012

In view of the aforesaid and given the fact that the respondent has not had the benefit of the decree, we clarify that the deposit of the amount was for the purpose of obtaining stay from this court against execution proceedings and cannot be said to be a tender towards the satisfaction of the decree in view of the Division Bench judgment of this court in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Vs. Arvind Construction Company Ltd.,(2009) 111 DRJ 364. The amount be now released unconditionally to the respondent and, it will be open to the respondent to take out execution proceedings for the balance amount, if any.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Adidas India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Hicare India Properties Pvt. Ltd. on 5 October, 2015

4. Likewise, in M/s Engineering Projects (India) Limited (supra), although the context was in execution proceeding, the Court followed the ruling in P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar (supra). In both these cases, the deposits were made during the pendency of an appeal at an earlier stage. Per se, the deposits were not made in execution proceedings. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the respondent, i.e., the successful party was deprived of the use of the money. No comfort is derived from the fact that it might have applied and been allowed to withdraw the amount subject to further conditions, such as furnishing of security or bank guarantee. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the non-applicant's contentions. The entire amounts lying in the Court shall be made over to the respondent/applicant by the Registry.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1