Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)
Idcol Cement Ltd. vs P. Roy Chowdhury And Company And Ors. on 29 June, 2004 cites

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs M/S. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums on 23 July, 2003

19. The decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) has no application. In that case the existence of the arbitration clause was admitted and there was no third party involved. The Supreme Court of India, therefore, observed that if there was any objection as to the applicability of the arbitration clause to the facts of the case, the same would have to be raised before the arbitral tribunal concerned and the Civil Court could not proceed to examine the applicability of the arbitration agreement to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 306 - Full Document

Biswanath Rungta vs Oriental Industrial Engineering Co. ... on 9 July, 1974

Mr. Banerjee in this connection cites the decisions in the cases of Satyendra Nath Mitra v. Union of India, , Lotus Oil Company v. Calcutta Soap Works, , Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Bharat Spun Pipe Co., , Biswanath Rungta v. Oriental Industrial Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., , Srivenkateswara Constructions and Ors. v. Union of India, .
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Srivenkateswara Constructions And ... vs The Union Of India on 17 July, 1973

Mr. Banerjee in this connection cites the decisions in the cases of Satyendra Nath Mitra v. Union of India, , Lotus Oil Company v. Calcutta Soap Works, , Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Bharat Spun Pipe Co., , Biswanath Rungta v. Oriental Industrial Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., , Srivenkateswara Constructions and Ors. v. Union of India, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. vs Satis Chandra Nandi And Co. And Ors. on 18 March, 1936

10. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned advocate for the plaintiff not only disputes the contentions raised by Mr. Banerjee, but also submits that this application by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury, the defendant No. 2, in his individual capacity, is not maintainable. The arbitration agreement is an independent contract. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1- firm. The application by the defendant No. 2 in his individual capacity is not, therefore, maintainable. He submits that one partner can file an application in the name of the firm although other partners do not join him. Nevertheless, the name of the firm should be mentioned as the petitioner in the cause title. Mr. Mitra in support of his contentions cites the decisions in the cases of Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. v. Satis Chandra Nandi & Co. and Ors., , Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and Ors., , Sohanlal Pachisia & Co. v. Bilasray Khemani and Ors., and Garden Finance Limited v. Prakash Industries Lid. and Anr., reported in 2002(1) Arb. LR 122.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas vs The Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. on 24 November, 1943

10. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned advocate for the plaintiff not only disputes the contentions raised by Mr. Banerjee, but also submits that this application by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury, the defendant No. 2, in his individual capacity, is not maintainable. The arbitration agreement is an independent contract. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1- firm. The application by the defendant No. 2 in his individual capacity is not, therefore, maintainable. He submits that one partner can file an application in the name of the firm although other partners do not join him. Nevertheless, the name of the firm should be mentioned as the petitioner in the cause title. Mr. Mitra in support of his contentions cites the decisions in the cases of Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. v. Satis Chandra Nandi & Co. and Ors., , Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and Ors., , Sohanlal Pachisia & Co. v. Bilasray Khemani and Ors., and Garden Finance Limited v. Prakash Industries Lid. and Anr., reported in 2002(1) Arb. LR 122.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Sohanlal Pachisia & Co. vs Bilasray Khemani And Ors. on 11 December, 1953

10. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned advocate for the plaintiff not only disputes the contentions raised by Mr. Banerjee, but also submits that this application by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury, the defendant No. 2, in his individual capacity, is not maintainable. The arbitration agreement is an independent contract. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1- firm. The application by the defendant No. 2 in his individual capacity is not, therefore, maintainable. He submits that one partner can file an application in the name of the firm although other partners do not join him. Nevertheless, the name of the firm should be mentioned as the petitioner in the cause title. Mr. Mitra in support of his contentions cites the decisions in the cases of Bhadreswar Coal Supply Co. v. Satis Chandra Nandi & Co. and Ors., , Bhagwanji Morarji Goculdas v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. and Ors., , Sohanlal Pachisia & Co. v. Bilasray Khemani and Ors., and Garden Finance Limited v. Prakash Industries Lid. and Anr., reported in 2002(1) Arb. LR 122.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Kritanta Kumar Guha, Receiver Of Firm ... vs Pullin Krishna (Behary In Vok) Pal And ... on 16 November, 1937

15. This application filed by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury in his individual capacity is not maintainable. Panchu GopalRoy Chowdhury could maintain this application if the application was filed in the name of the firm although his other partner did not join him. The application is required to be filed for and on behalf of the firm and not by one of the partner in his individual capacity. Merely because Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury signed the agreement dated August 10, 1997 for and on behalf of the firm, it cannot be said that he can maintain this application in his individual capacity. The decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee in the cases of Radha Kanta Pal (supra), In re: Kuver Bank Limited (supra) and Purushottam Umedbhai and Company (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in none of those decisions it was held that a partner can sue in his own name and need not to take out the action in the name of the firm.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Kuver Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs State Of West Bengal on 14 January, 1958

15. This application filed by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury in his individual capacity is not maintainable. Panchu GopalRoy Chowdhury could maintain this application if the application was filed in the name of the firm although his other partner did not join him. The application is required to be filed for and on behalf of the firm and not by one of the partner in his individual capacity. Merely because Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury signed the agreement dated August 10, 1997 for and on behalf of the firm, it cannot be said that he can maintain this application in his individual capacity. The decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee in the cases of Radha Kanta Pal (supra), In re: Kuver Bank Limited (supra) and Purushottam Umedbhai and Company (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in none of those decisions it was held that a partner can sue in his own name and need not to take out the action in the name of the firm.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Purushottam Umedbhai & Co vs M/S. Manilal And Sons (In Connected ... on 7 October, 1960

15. This application filed by Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury in his individual capacity is not maintainable. Panchu GopalRoy Chowdhury could maintain this application if the application was filed in the name of the firm although his other partner did not join him. The application is required to be filed for and on behalf of the firm and not by one of the partner in his individual capacity. Merely because Panchu Gopal Roy Chowdhury signed the agreement dated August 10, 1997 for and on behalf of the firm, it cannot be said that he can maintain this application in his individual capacity. The decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee in the cases of Radha Kanta Pal (supra), In re: Kuver Bank Limited (supra) and Purushottam Umedbhai and Company (supra) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in none of those decisions it was held that a partner can sue in his own name and need not to take out the action in the name of the firm.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 64 - S J Imam - Full Document
1   2 Next