Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Amu Shares And Securities Limited vs Rajendra Yeshwant Shah And 13 Ors. on 12 August, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Mohindra Supply Company on 5 September, 1961

50) Reliance is placed by Mr. Cama on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Union of India Versus. N. K. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in which again the issue involved was about maintainability of an ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.40 of 66 12 August 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:41:06 ::: Neeta Sawant APP-104-109-2019-FC appeal under the Letters Patent against an order passed in proceedings under the Act of 1940, which otherwise are not appealable under Section 39 of the Act. The judgment therefore provides no assistance for deciding the issue at hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 178 - J C Shah - Full Document

Paramjeet Singh Patheja vs Icds Ltd on 31 October, 2006

In these circumstances and in view of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, the decision in the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. (supra) shall also not be applicable as in the Trade Marks Act with which the court was dealing, did not have any provision like the one contained in sub- section (1) of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act restricting the right of appeal only in respect of certain nature of orders and prohibiting appeal against any other order whatsoever.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 91 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Sivakama Sundari S Narayana S B Murthy on 26 August, 2011

19. The Madras High Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Sivakama Sundari, 2011 SCC Online Mad 1290 referred to Section 46 of the said Code, which spoke of precepts but stopped at that. In the context of the Code, thus, the view adopted is that the decree of a civil court is liable to be executed primarily by the Court, which passes the decree where an execution application has to be filed at the first ______________________________________________________________________________ Page No.34 of 66 12 August 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2025 21:41:06 ::: Neeta Sawant APP-104-109-2019-FC instance. An award under Section 36 of the said Act, is equated to a decree of the Court for the purposes of execution and only for that purpose. Thus, it was rightly observed that while an award passed by the arbitral tribunal is deemed to be a decree under Section 36 of the said Act, there was no deeming fiction anywhere to hold that the Court within whose jurisdiction the arbitral award was passed should be taken to be the Court, which passed the decree. The said Act actually transcends all territorial barriers.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 41 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1