Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.60 seconds)
Dwarika Projects Limited vs Director Of Civil Aviation & Anr on 6 February, 2025 cites

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs M/S. Ark Builders Pvt.Ltd on 28 February, 2011

"15. The reference to the case of ARK Builders Private Limited (supra) where there was a dispute as to the delivery of a copy of the award by the arbitrator, by the Appellant would be inapplicable since, in the present case, the delivery of the copy of the award is not in contention. The only question is whether the copy of the impugned award, delivered to DUSIB by the arbitrator was a signed copy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 146 - A Alam - Full Document

Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001

In Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470] , this Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply to applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It was held that : (SCC pp. 474-75, para 12) "12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are "but not thereafter" used in FAO(OS) (COMM) 103/2024 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 678 - R Pal - Full Document

P.Radha Bai vs P.Ashok Kumar on 26 September, 2018

38. If the objections are not filed within the period prescribed by Section 34, the award holder is entitled to move for enforcement of the arbitral award as a deemed decree of the court under Section 36 of the Act. This Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar [P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 13 SCC 445 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 773] , held that : (SCC pp. 457-59, paras 32.5 & 36.2) "32.5. Once the time-limit or extended time-limit for challenging the arbitral award expires, the period for enforcing the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act commences. This is evident from the phrase "where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired" [ "36. Enforcement.--Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court."(emphasis supplied)] . There is an integral nexus between the period prescribed under Section 34(3) to challenge the award and the commencement of the enforcement period under Section 36 to execute the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 110 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ... vs M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 2 March, 2021

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, would contend that what Section 31(3) contemplates is the parties being served and delivered a signed copy of the Award in original. The provisions of sub-section (3) are thus sought to be interpreted as alluding only to the delivery of a physical copy of the Award. It is in the aforesaid context that learned counsel had sought to rely upon the following observations as rendered by the Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd.3:
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 133 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Y. Narasimha Rao And Ors vs Y. Venkata Lakshmi And Anr on 9 July, 1991

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 00:47:21 appended by the doctor on the original is primary evidence within the meaning of Section 62 of the Evidence Act and the judgments of the courts below holding otherwise were set aside. Similarly, in Y.N. Rao v. Y.V. Lakshmi, 1991 RLR 367 (SC) a photocopy of document has been held to be a secondary evidence within the meaning of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment of the High Court refusing to see a foreign judgment and decree for the reason of copy provided being a photocopy was set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 92 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 Next