Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Saraswat Trading Agency And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 July, 2006

The Chief Engineer vs M/S. Prakash Constructions on 5 March, 2013

46. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of (a) Saraswat Trading Agency v. Union of India reported in AIR 2004 Cal 267; (b) Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Constructions Pt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2005 SC 214; and (c) Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 498 are all not applicable to the facts of the instant case since those judgments deal with Arbitration Act, 1940 and not the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Act, 1996 is very different from the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the provisions of the Act, 1996 will have to be interpreted and construed independently and http://www.judis.nic.in 33 reference to the Arbitration Act, 1940 may actually lead to misconstruction.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Richpal Singh vs ) Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on 10 January, 2023

In case title Saraswat Trading Agency Vs. Union of India12, it is held by High Court that, "If Court finds that decree is a nullity, Court cannot proceed to execute it. A decree which is a nullity in the eye of law is no decree and, hence, even by consent of the parties such a decree cannot be executed by the Court. But for this reason it cannot be denied the remedy available to it under Section 47. If the Court finds that the decree is a nullity, the Court cannot proceed to execute it, and it is the duty of the Court to hold that the decree is not executable."
Delhi District Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V.K.John vs S.Mukanchand Bothra & Huf (Deceased) on 25 July, 2023

AIR 2004 CAL.267 [Saraswat Trading Agency vs. Union of India (UOI) and others] iv. AIR 2008 CHH 75 [R.S.Bajwa and Company vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others] 5/31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Appeal No.443 of 2020 in Application No.7185 of 2019 in E.P.No.17 of 2012 in Arbitration Award No.1 of 2011 and Arb.O.P.SR.No.37500 of 2023 v. AIR 1991 ORI 36 [Radhi Dei and others vs. Lalit Bihari Mohanty] vi. 2009 SCC Online Del 4383 [Gotham Entertainment Group LLC and others vs. Diamond Comics Pvt. Ltd.] vii.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunirman Pvt. Ltd. ......Claimant vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2009

In Saraswat Trading Agency & Anr. vs. Union of India reported in 2007 CWN (111) 88 a Division Bench of this Court construed a similar clause in a contract, prohibiting interest, to operate as a bar between the parties but not the arbitrator, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and upheld the award impugned on all counts including the award of interest.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Shri Jaichandlal Ashok Kumar & Co. Pvt. ... vs Nawab Yossuf & Anr on 21 February, 2017

It is submitted that in a proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can always go into the question of executability of the decree and in this regard has referred to a Single Bench decision in M/s. Saraswat Trading Agency v. Union of India & Ors. reported at AIR 2004 Cal 267 Paragraph 8 in which it was held that the Court in a proceeding under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure can consider whether the resultant award is a product of an invalid reference. The paragraph 8 on which reliance has been place is:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - S Sen - Full Document

Poonam Agarwal vs Pooja Construction Company on 16 August, 2018

xii) Learned counsel for the petitioner next cited the judgment reported at AIR 2004 Cal 267 [Saraswat Trading Agency vs. Union of India] for the proposition that a decree which is a nullity in the eye of law is no decree and hence even by consent of parties such a decree cannot be executed by the Court. Even if the judgment debtor did not raise the question before, it could not be denied the remedy available to it under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such cases.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Tarun Bassan vs Intec Capital Ltd on 9 May, 2024

In case title Saraswat Trading Agency Vs. Union of India4, it is held by High Court that, "If Court finds that decree is a nullity, Court cannot proceed to execute it. A decree which is a nullity in the eye of law is no decree and, hence, even by consent of the parties such a decree cannot be executed by the Court. But for this reason it cannot be denied the remedy available to it under Section 47. If the Court finds that the decree is a nullity, the Court cannot proceed to execute it, and it is the duty of the Court to hold that the decree is not executable."
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhawar Singh And Anr vs M/S Shree Ank Finhold Pvt Ltd on 23 September, 2023

In case title Saraswat Trading Agency Vs. Union of India 12, it is held by High Court that, "If Court finds that decree is a nullity, Court cannot proceed to execute it. A decree which is a nullity in the eye of law is no decree and, hence, even by consent of the parties such a decree cannot be executed by the Court. But for this reason it cannot be denied the remedy available to it under Section 47. If the Court finds that the decree is a nullity, the Court cannot proceed to 9 AIR 1977 SC 1201 10 1954 Latest Caselaw 43 SC 11 AIR 1996 SC 1819 , 1996 Latest Caselaw 332 SC 12 AIR 2004 Cal 267 (270) OMP (Comm.) No.10/2022 Page 7 of 39 Bhawar Singh and Anr. Vs. M/s Shree ANK execute it, and it is the duty of the Court to hold that the decree is not executable."
Delhi District Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next