Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Brick Steel Enterprises, A Registered ... vs The Superintending Engineer, Public ... on 19 April, 2006

Up Industrial Consultants Ltd vs Gail (India) Limited on 12 February, 2021

38. Ld. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any provision in the agreement inter se parties containing any bar or prohibition of grant of interest by Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The jurisdiction of Ld. Sole Arbitrator was not challenged as per the procedure laid in the Act as the matter was referred to ARBTN No. 1839/2018 UP Industrial Consultants Ltd. Vs GAIL (India) Limited & Anr. Page 18 of 20 Ld. Sole Arbitrator with consent of both the parties, whereas no plea on this facet was raised in the statement of defence by the petitioner before Ld. Sole Arbitrator. No plea with respect to deduction of TDS @ 4% and not giving of certificate was raised in statement of defence by petitioner before Ld. Sole Arbitrator. No counter claim was raised by petitioner concerning TDS certificate in arbitration proceeding. No plea was raised by petitioner based on Clause 5.4 or 5.5 of the agreement in entire statement of defence before Ld. Sole Arbitrator. No new plea is tenable in present petition. Reliance placed upon the case of Brick Steel Enterprises (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Exl Service.Com (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Rohit Peter on 28 March, 2012

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following CS No. 77/11 3 authorities, Bhairab Karmakar and construction company Vs. Sarbari Biswas 2009 (4) RAJ 369 (Cal), New Globe Transport Corporation Vs. Magma Sharchi Finance Ltd. 2011(4 RAJ 176 (Cal), M/s Shiv Shakti Rice Mills Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation & others 2005(4) RAJ 454 (P&H), Balkrishna Ramkaran Goyal Vs. Union of India 2005(4) RAJ 457 (Del), Union of India Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. 2004(2) RAJ 295 (Del), Reena Sadh Vs. Anjana Enterprises 2007 (138) DLT 582, Brick Steel Enterprises Vs. The Superintending Engineer, PWD 2006 (5) CTC 519, and SRS Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Home Stores (India) Ltd. to strengthen his case.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kekare Accident Hospital Through ... vs Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... on 15 December, 2017

6. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-Bank has relied upon two decisions; one is that of the Apex Court in the case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 , and second decision is of Madras High Court in the case of Brick Steel Enterprises Vs. The Superintending Engineer, 2006 (5) CTC 519 , to submit that, having regard to the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there is no lee-way or scope for production of any oral or documentary evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arumugham vs Krishnammal @ Kittu on 30 April, 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Execution Court ought not to have refused to execute the decree on the ground that the decree holder has lost interest in the subject matter and that the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree even if he has sold the property either during the pendency of the suit or subsequently and that production or marking of sale deed is immaterial at the time of execution of the decree. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court reported in 2007 1 MLJ 484 (M.Baskaran, Gudiyatham Vs.M.Sabathy, Vellore) and 2007 1 MLJ 488 (Brick Steel Enterprises, Salem Vs. Superintending Engineer, Salem).
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A A Nakkiran - Full Document

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs M/S P.S. & Sons on 2 September, 2008

16. The scope of the challenge to an award passed by an Arbitrator has been discussed in the judgment of Brick Steel Enterprises V. The Superintending Engineer 2006 (5) CTC 519 . It was held in this case that the court can exercise limited jurisdiction over the award passed by the arbitrator. The court cannot go to the merits or re-apprise or re-examine the evidence or look into the insufficiency of the evidence. The court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the actual finding of the arbitrator. The court can interfere only when the conditions enumerated in Section 34 (2) of the Act are not satisfied.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1