citedby: 872296

National Agricultural Marketing ... vs Alimenta S.A. on 10 July, 2009

He has inter alia also relied upon the case of UOI Vs. Mohindra Supply Co. AIR 1962 SC 256; State of FAO (OS) No.205/2000 Page 25 of 38 West Bengal Vs. Gourangalal Chatterjee, (1993) 3 SCC 1; Milkfood Ltd. Vs. M/s GMC Ice Cream (P) (2004) 7 SCC 288; Milkfood Ltd. Vs. M/s GMC Ice Cream (P) LPA No.492/2008 decided on 17th February, 2003.

Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - M Mudgal - Full Document

Smt. Sudarshan Chopra And Ors. vs Vijay Kumar Chopra And Ors. on 24 April, 2002

While referring to Mohindra Supply Co.'s case, supra, the apex court in State of West Bengal v. Gaurangalal Chatterjee (1993) 3 SCC 1 observed :

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 11 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Suresh Jayantilal Ajmera And Others vs Rasiklal Gokaldas Ajmera And Others on 10 September, 1996

The above decision was referred to with approval by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gourangalal Chatterjee (supra). It was reiterated that the under sub-section (1) of Section 39, an appeal shall lie only from the orders mentioned in that sub-section itself.

Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D G Deshpande - Full Document

Orma Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Nissai Asb Pte. Ltd. on 19 August, 1998

In State of West Bengal v. Ms. Gourangalal Chatterjee (supra) this Court relied upon an earlier decision of the Court in Union of India v. Modindra Supply Company . The said decision was rendered with reference to the appealability of an Order passed by the High Court in an appeal from the Order of subordinate Court and not from the Order passed by a learned single Judge sitting on the Original Side of the High Court.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Dr. Ramesh C. Vaish And Ors. vs Banwarilal Jaipuria And Ors. on 6 April, 1999

22. A Special Bench of this Court in which one of us (S.B. Sinha, J.) was a member in Union of India v. K. Satyanarayan & Co., reported in (1995) 1 Cal LJ 458, inter alia, taking into consideration the decisions in State of W.B. v. Guarangalal Chatterjee and Santosh Kumar Agarwal v. Phalguni Banerjee, reported in 1994(1) Cal HN 113, held :--

Calcutta High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr. vs Monoranjan Mondal & Ors. on 6 December, 1999

7. It may be worthwhile to mention that Clause 37 of Letters Patent of Punjab is in par! materla to Clause 44 of our Letters Patent. Mohlndra Supply Co. came to be noticed in a later Judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of State of West Bengal v. Gourangalal Chatterjee wherein their Lordships held as under:--

Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Venkateswara Engineering ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its ... on 6 October, 1993

28. Coming to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the State, Sri E. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that the appeals are not maintainable. He relies upon a decision reported in State of W.B. v. Gourangalal Chatterjee, . The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider identical question about the maintainability of appeals. Considering the language of Section 39(1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court held that appeals are not maintainable. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeals filed by the State are not maintainable.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ciscons Consulting Engineers And ... vs The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on 28 July, 1995

We therefore, posted the matter 'for being mentioned' and it came up on 11.7.1995. A look at Section 39 itself placed the issue beyond doubt. See State of W.B. v. Gourangalal Chatterjee . The learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal-petitioner in the present C.R.P. - accepted that the appeal was not maintainable and sought time to file a petition to convert the same into a revision petition.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chairman Of The Board Of Trustees Of The ... vs Sri Gurucharan Singh And Anr. on 4 September, 2003

In State of West Bengal v. Gourangalal Chatterjee the appeal under Section 39 was held to be not maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge appointing a new arbitrator since the order was not covered under any of the clauses of Section 39 nor even letters patent appeal was held to be maintainable.

Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Deepak Eknath Dhavan vs Anwar Faramosh Khan And Anr. on 29 March, 2004

Thereafter they drew our attention to another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Gourangalal Chatterjee . That was also a matter under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Apex Court held that the appeal would not be available to a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta under Letters Patent.

Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results