Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P.Ltd vs Amci (I) P.Ltd.& Anr on 27 July, 2009

M/S Bhadra Products vs M/S Indian Farmers Fertilizer on 30 January, 2025

We are constrained to observe that Fiza Developers [Fiza pg. 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:32 Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC 796 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 637] was a step in the right direction as its ultimate ratio is that issues need not be struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure. However, this judgment must now be read in the light of the amendment made in Sections 34(5) and 34(6). So read, we clarify the legal position by stating that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator. However, if there are matters not contained in such record, and are relevant to the determination of issues arising under Section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the court by way of affidavits filed by both parties. Cross-examination of persons swearing to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary, as the truth will emerge on a reading of the affidavits filed by both parties.
Orissa High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S K Panigrahi - Full Document

Union Of India vs A.Chockalingam on 18 March, 2019

32.Be that as it may, Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. Vs. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796 held that an application in the nature of instant OP which is http://www.judis.nic.in 16 under Section 34 of A & C Act is a summary procedure and this principle laid down by Supreme Court in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. Vs. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. was subsequently reiterated in Emkay Global Financial Services Limited Vs. Girdhar Sondhi reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49. While referring to the Fiza Developers principle, Supreme Court in Emkay Global has held that Fiza Developers principle is a step in the right direction towards expeditious disposal of petitions under Section 34 of A & C Act.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Priya Hiranandani Vandrevala vs Niranjan Hiranandani & Anr. on 12 May, 2016

h. It is stated in the written submission that, the present petition is the first-in-time. Judgment here stood reserved even before the Mumbai Petition was listed and the simple obtaining of a Lodging number, while the actual petition languishes in the registry, cannot be said to be the making of an application, in terms of Section 42. The reference to filing of an application in Fiza Developers & Inter-trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Ami (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 (as relied upon by the respondents), is in an entirely different context as it relates to the automatic stay of the award upon filing Section 34 application. In that case, there is no question of a party who is no dominus litus foisting the choice of forum upon the party that is in fact dominus litus.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - V K Rao - Full Document

Dlf Southern Houses Private Limited vs Ravi Gupta on 3 April, 2019

We are constrained to observe that Fiza Developers[Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC 796 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 637] was a step in the right direction as its ultimate ratio is that issues need not be http://www.judis.nic.in 12 struck at the stage of hearing a Section 34 application, which is a summary procedure. However, this judgment must now be read in the light of the amendment made in Sections 34(5) and 34(6). So read, we clarify the legal position by stating that an application for setting aside an arbitral award will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator. However, if there are matters not contained in such record, and are relevant to the determination of issues arising under Section 34(2)(a), they may be brought to the notice of the Court by way of affidavits filed by both parties. Cross-examination of persons swearing to the affidavits should not be allowed unless absolutely necessary, as the truth will emerge on a reading of the affidavits filed by both parties.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

M/S.Color Home Developers Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Color Castle Owners Society on 5 April, 2022

Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fiza Developers case law is to the effect that a Section 34 petition and hearing of the same is a one issue summary procedure. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also gone on to explain that 'one issue' does not mean that lis should turn on one issue. It is made clear that arbitral award being put to challenge itself is an issue and procedure qua Section 34 legal drill is summary.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next