Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 195 (2.20 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006

Abhishek Gupta vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... on 2 March, 2022

22. We find that the said letter dated 11.8.2018 (supra) very clearly mentions the debt as it is crystallized in the judgment of DRT-III and also shows inclination to pay the requisite amount. Thus the said letter does not refer to any settlement that is being discussed and hence the judgment in Peacock Plywood case also does not come to the aid of the Appellant‟s case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Kcm Petrotech vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 5 April, 2021

30. Clause 6.2(v) of MoA inter alia provided of duty of petitioner to maintain true and proper accounts with respect to the production and sale of product in question, and the sale price and/or royalty(ies) and such accounts were to be open for scrutiny by any authorized representatives or auditors appointed by respondent. Such duty cast upon petitioner was not discharged by petitioner in the extended period, as per MoM after 31/03/2013, as the royalty statements as well as royalty payments were not given to respondent by petitioner despite various letters of demand of respondent. Petitioner was pestering with his request for reduction of Royalty from 2% on basic to 0.5% OR Rs.200/- per MT under the pretext to sustain in the competition market and did not provide to the respondent the agreed upon royalty statements for period after 31/03/2013 and outstanding royalty payments. It had been own case of petitioner vide aforesaid letter dated 29/12/2016 for willing to pay Royalty @ 0.5% amounting to Rs.19,28,802/- up to 31/03/2016. The said facts laid foundation for calculation of Royalty payable by ARBTN No. 5300/2018 KCM Petrotech vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Page 33 of 43 petitioner to respondent, as elicited in detail in the impugned arbitral award. The language of the aforesaid letter dated 29/12/2016, elicited herein above, brings into fore the circumstances in which the words are used but the document does not attract without prejudice privilege as the said letter simply proceeds further with the pestering of petitioner of earlier put forth request for re-consideration downward revision of Royalty from 2% on basic to 0.5% of basic or Rs.200/- per MT and not a genuine attempt in the negotiations to settle the dispute. So in this fact of the matter, the pronouncement in the case of Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd. Vs Oriential Insurance Co. Ltd., (2006) 12 SCC 673 would be of no help to the petitioner to claim the letter dated 29/12/2016 to be without prejudice letter.
Delhi District Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhishek Gupta vs Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... on 2 March, 2022

22. We find that the said letter dated 11.8.2018 (supra) very clearly mentions the debt as it is crystallized in the judgment of DRT-III and also shows inclination to pay the requisite amount. Thus the said letter does not refer to any settlement that is being discussed and hence the judgment in Peacock Plywood case also does not come to the aid of the Appellant‟s case.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Om Prakash Pandey vs Bank Of India & Anr on 6 May, 2022

7. It is significant to mention that the Appellant does not deny this acknowledgment. It is only their case that as proposal for Restructuring was pending, such a letter of acknowledgement does not construe an acknowledgement in the legal sense. The Judgement relied upon by the Appellant Counsel i.e., 'Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) deals with repudation of an insurance claim on several grounds and an issue was framed as to whether the suit filed challenging this repudation, was 'barred by Limitation'. While deciding the issue pertaining to the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajiv Sanghvi And 3 Ors vs Pradip R Kamdar And 2 Ors on 30 June, 2022

Further in Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that there are circumstances in which correspondence is initiated with a view to settlement but the parties do not intend that the correspondence should be without prejudice. It may be that the parties positively want any subsequent Court to see the correspondence and always had in mind that it should be open correspondence. He has submitted that it is a settled position of law that the reliance on a document which is 'without prejudice' would not render the earlier acceptance on the admissibility of the document nugatory.
Bombay High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Om Prakash Pandey vs Bank Of India & Anr on 6 May, 2022

7. It is significant to mention that the Appellant does not deny this acknowledgment. It is only their case that as proposal for Restructuring was pending, such a letter of acknowledgement does not construe an acknowledgement in the legal sense. The Judgement relied upon by the Appellant Counsel i.e., 'Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd.' (Supra) deals with repudation of an insurance claim on several grounds and an issue was framed as to whether the suit filed challenging this repudation, was 'barred by Limitation'. While deciding the issue pertaining to the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next