Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)

M/S Hari Ram Piara Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 October, 2023

7. The respondent preferred objection petition under Section 34 of of Arbitration Act before District Judge, Chandigarh. The matter came up for consideration before Additional District Judge, Chandigarh who vide 4 of 14 ::: Downloaded on - 16-10-2023 22:29:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:132139 CWP-3360-2014 (O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:132139 order dated 10.10.2017 dismissed objection petition of the respondent. The learned ADJ concluded that Court under Section 34 of Arbitration Act cannot sit like appellate authority over the award passed by Arbitrator and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The Arbitrator has properly appreciated the evidence, therefore, it has to be relied upon. The Objecting Court turned down plea of the respondent with respect to presence of sales officer of the respondent-HPCL. With respect to judgment of Calcutta High Court in Ramesh Kejriwal Vs. Union of India, 2011(33) RCR (Civil) 112, cited by the respondent, it was held that in the said case, there was no dispute with respect to presence of sales officer.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs M/S Hari Ram Piara Lal & Another on 11 October, 2023

In support of his contention, the appellant relied upon judgment of Calcutta High Court in Ramesh Kejriwal's case (supra), Allahabad High Court in M/s Amba Filling Station and another vs. Union of India and others, 2012(91) ALR 729 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. M/s.R.M. Service Centre and Anr., 2019 (19) SCC 662.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrnutan Singh Thakur vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 October, 2014

4. The   matter   was   heard   by   the   Commission.     The   appellant  stated   that   Shri   Bhuneshwar   Singh   has   given   no   objection   in  providing   information   to   the   him   and   the   CPIO   had   wrongly  denied information by quoting Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.  The   appellant   further   stated   that   the   CPIO   has   not   followed  the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act. The respondents  stated   that   the   signatures   of   Shri   Bhuneshwar   Singh   did   not  tally in the NOC provided by the appellant hence information  was   denied   to   the   appellant   being   third   party   information.  Moreover, the appellant had not established any larger public  interest   which   warrants   disclosure   of   such   information.   The  respondents referred to the decision of High Court of Delhi in  the matter of Arvind  Kejriwal  Vs. Union of India in LPA No.  719/2010 decided on 30.9.2011  which deals with the procedure  under   Section   11     and   mentions   that   there   should   be  overwhelming public interest to follow procedure of Rule 11 of  the RTI Act.
Central Information Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1