Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)
M/S Gyanchand Mehta vs State & Anr on 13 July, 2009 cites

M/S N.S. Nayak & Sons vs State Of Goa on 8 May, 2003

4. Ms. Rekha Borana, learned counsel for the respondent- contractor has also raised an objection that one the hand the learned court below held that the proceedings were governed by the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under which the award was not even required to be made a rule of Court whereas the Arbitration proceedings in question having been initiated prior to the commencement of 1996 Act were governed by the earlier Act of 1940 and since the State has admittedly filed the application under the new enactment Section 34 thereof, the same was not maintainable and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. She has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Nayak and Sons Vs. State of Goa 2003(3) Arbv.LR 109 (SC) and Milkfood Ltd. Vs. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. - 2004(1) Arb.LR 613 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Milkfood Ltd vs M/S Gmc Ice Cream (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2004

4. Ms. Rekha Borana, learned counsel for the respondent- contractor has also raised an objection that one the hand the learned court below held that the proceedings were governed by the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 under which the award was not even required to be made a rule of Court whereas the Arbitration proceedings in question having been initiated prior to the commencement of 1996 Act were governed by the earlier Act of 1940 and since the State has admittedly filed the application under the new enactment Section 34 thereof, the same was not maintainable and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. She has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Nayak and Sons Vs. State of Goa 2003(3) Arbv.LR 109 (SC) and Milkfood Ltd. Vs. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd. - 2004(1) Arb.LR 613 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 144 - S B Sinha - Full Document

B.L. Gupta Construction (P) Ltd vs Bharat Cooperative Group Housing ... on 5 November, 2003

"5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.L. Gupta Construction Company's case (Supra) held that the arbitrator had exercised his jurisdiction under Section 34 of the C.P.C. by grant of pendente lite interest at the rate of 18% per annum and the High Court could not have interfered with the said discretionary order where no reason was assigned for the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, reduced the rate for pre-reference stage and pre-arbitration stage to 10% per annum payable to the party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1