Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 96 (3.20 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Others vs Manager M/S Jain And Associates on 6 February, 2001

Alcock Ashdown Gujarat Limited vs Interocean Navigation Limited on 2 February, 2017

6.4 In the case of Union of India v. Manager, Jain and Associates (supra), an ex-parte decree was passed and an affidavit was filed by the applicant explaining the ground and reasons for delay and in the context provisions of the Arbitration Act, the Apex Court found that there was some procedural error in seeking leave of the Court to file objections, but it would not warrant rejection of the prayer and the Court also found that there was no dispute that case papers had been handed over by the appellant's representative to the counsel for drafting application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act on a particular date i.e. before the expiry of the period of limitation and, thereafter, the applicant had no control over such papers or the counsel and then delay occurred came to be condoned.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Union Of India vs Nav Bharat Construction on 3 October, 2001

28. The next Supreme Court judgment cited in the case of Union of India v. Jain & Associates is also under AA 40. The facts are that the arbitrator passed an award on 28.02.1986 and filed it before the High Court in 06.03.1997. Union of India received notice regarding filing of objection on 21.03.1997, 30 days from that date, expired on 21.04.1997 and the matter came up before the Court on 28.04.1997. On that date, it was orally stated before the Court on behalf of Union of India that an objection application under Sections 30 and 33 of AA 40 was under preparation and orally prayer was made for extension of time for filing the application. The Court rejected the prayer and passed a decree on the basis of the award under Section 17 on the same day.
Calcutta High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Ut Of J&K (Erstwhile State Of J&K) vs M/S Hans Raj Bharat Bhushan on 21 August, 2024

15. The aforesaid authority itself clinches the issue that even non-filing of the application under Section 30 or 33 of the Act, objecting the award, by itself shall not result into making the award rule of the court. The court has to decide the proceedings qua the award on merits. The learned Senior counsel for the firm has argued that as the appellants herein did not file an application for restoration of application filed under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, could not file the present appeal cannot be accepted. Though it was open to the appellant to file an application for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2021, however, that does not come in the way of the appellants to file the appeal as the award came to be made rule of the court in the application filed for making the award rule of the court. The appellants were not necessarily required to file application for setting aside order dated 29.06.2021 and cannot be non-suited on the ground 9 Arb App No. 2/2022 that they did not file such an application. If the court intended to consider the application bearing No. 2631/2022 filed by the firm for making award rule of the court as a consequence to the order dated 29.06.2021, the court should have considered also the application filed for setting aside the award filed by the appellants herein though the application for setting aside the award was dismissed earlier vide order dated 29.06.2021 and the appellants had not taken steps to set aside the order dated 29.06.2021. At the cost of repetition, the court was bound to consider the award inspite of the fact that the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the award had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The judgment in Union of India Vs. Manager Jain (supra) applies on all fours in the present case. The court vide impugned judgment dated 27.05.2022 has for all practical purposes refused to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator. The decree has followed the judgment. It is not that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not give finality to the award or that it cannot be executed so as to take it out of the realm of judgment refusing to set aside the award.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P K Gupta - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Om Construction Co. on 2 July, 2019

In Union of India v. Jain Associates and Ors. (1994) 4SCC 665, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a Contractor had raised claims due to the delay of the department and the High Court in the said case had held that the two claims i.e. claim for delay, laches, negligence and default and the claim for loss of profits were overlapping. The High Court had restricted the amounts under the claims but the Supreme Court had set aside the complete award itself.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - P M Singh - Full Document

M/S Chintels India Ltd vs M/S Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd on 4 December, 2020

Attention was also drawn to Chief Engineer, BPDP/REO, Ranchi Vs. Scoot Wilson Kirpatrick India (P) Ltd. (2006) 13 SCC 622, where, concerned with the order of a Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court holding the appeal against an order refusing condonation of delay in applying under Section 34(1) to be not maintainable, relying on Essar Constructions Vs. N.P. Rama Krishna Reddy (2000) 6 SCC 94 and Union of India Vs. Manager, M/s Jain and Associates (2001) 3 SCC 277 (although both pertaining to the Arbitration Act, 1940), the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, the appeal held to be maintainable and remitted to the Single Judge for decision in accordance with law.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Khaliq Lone vs Mst. Azi & Others on 3 February, 2021

9. The Supreme Court in the case of M/S Essar Constructions vs. N.P. Rama Krishna Reddy, (2000) 6 SCC 94 and Union of India and others vs. Manager, M/S Jain & Associates, (2001) 3 SCC 277, has clarified the position of law and has held that consequence of dismissal of condonation application is upholding of the judgment impugned and rejection of the belated appeal.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next