Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Surjeet Singh Atwal on 22 April, 1969

K. Premananda Pai vs K. Gopalakrishna Pai on 14 September, 1993

This question is squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal, wherein it is stated that proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would not be a proceeding in arbitration at all. In view of this categorical finding recorded by the Supreme Court, I do not think the question could have been answered in the manner as has been done in the case cited by the learned senior counsel for the respondent. Therefore, that decision cannot be of any assistance for a decision in this case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Milkfood Limited vs G.M.C. Ice Cream Private Limited And ... on 13 October, 1998

In this view of the matter, this petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed with costs I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the following judgments cited at Bar (1) Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal (supra) (2) Virendra Saigal v. M/s. Sumatilal Jamnalal (3) Behrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P. J. Pappu and another (1966 SC 634) (4) Niranjan Swain v. State of Orissa and others (5) Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D Bhandari - Full Document

M/S Milkfood Private Limited vs M/S Gmc Ice Cream (P)Ltd on 25 April, 2008

The counsel for the opposite party in reply to this has submitted that it is true that the judgment of Kumbha Mawji has been explained by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Surjeet Singh Atwal, but in paragraph No. 5 of this judgment, the Apex Court has explained that „notwithstanding the fact proceeding under Sections 8 and 20 are anterior to the reference yet they lead to reference and cover under mischief of Section 31(4) of the Act."
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - M Mishra - Full Document

I.K. Merchants (P) Ltd. vs Sirpur Papers Mills Ltd. on 17 March, 2005

14. Coming back to the present case, the parties entered into contract admittedly at Andhra Pradesh as appears from Clause 16. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the contract was executed within the jurisdiction of this Court. The goods were supplied admittedly at Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent has an office at R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. They, however, could not place a single document to show that any transaction and/or correspondence was exchanged by and between the parties from the said office. On a query made by the Court, Ms. Banerjee submits that the address given in the cause title is a sales office of the defendants and had nothing to do with the transaction the parties had for supply of goods by the petitioner to the respondent. Merely the respondent is having an office at Calcutta which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the dispute, in my view, cannot be considered as a place which can be said to be part of cause of action. Similarly the earlier suit filed in City Civil Court cannot give right to the petitioner ipso facto for maintaining the present proceeding in this Court and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Surjit Singh Atwal (supra) is a complete answer to the said contention.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A K Banerjee - Full Document

N.V. Chowdary, E-1 vs Hindustan Steel Works Constructions ... on 24 July, 2001

13. The decisions of the Apex Court in Surjet Singh Atwal (supra), M/s. Guru Nanak Foundation (supra) and State of M,P. (supra) whereupon Mr. G. Krishna Murthy has relied cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. It is one thing to say that it is in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 31 of the Act, all applications under that Act shall be filed before that Court which had appointed the arbitrator. But the same does not mean that an application for execution shall also be filed for enforcing a decree passed in terms of a judgment making the award a rule of Court also before the said Court inasmuch as execution of a decree must be made in terms of the provisions of the Code and not under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Section 31(4) will thus have no application whatsoever. It is now well settled that when a legal fiction is created the same must be given its full effect.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Janardan Mahapatra on 18 June, 1986

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Surjeet Singh Atwal, (supra) discussing the scope of Section 34 of the Act observed that it is only intended to make an arbitration agreement effective and prevent a party from going to Court contrary to his own agreement that the dispute is to be adjudicated by a private tribunal. The discussions in this decision as well as in the other decisions referred to above suggest that the provisions of Section 34 of the Act have application only to the proceedings other than those under the Act. It is well settled that the provisions under Section 20 of the Act vest wide discretion in the Court to appoint suitable arbitrator as well as formulate disputes for adjudication by the arbitrator.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next