Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)
Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L vs Vijay Karia And 76 Ors on 7 January, 2019 cites

Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999

90. Mr. Chinoy had contended that in view of provisions of section 16(b) and (c)the petitioners are not entitled to specific performance and that the mandatory nature of compliance was well settled law and as observed by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. Sunil Madan & Anr.(1999) 8 SCC 396 and Raj Kishore(dead) by LRs.vs. Prem Singh & Ors. (2011)1 SCC 657 as also in B. Vijaya Bharathi vs. P Savitri (2018) 11 SCC 761. Mr. Chinoy contended that the legal pre-conditions urged are not technical in ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:06:52 ::: *82* carbp-442.17(Prysmian)09012019.odt nature. They embody basic principles of justice and equity and constitute fundamental principles of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 582 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Kaikhusroo Phirozshah Doctor vs State Of Bombay on 20 August, 1954

57. Mr. De Vitre submitted that reference to these judgments were felt necessary since section 12 and the schedule ought not to be construed widely using a more narrow approach in respect of grounds under section 34 and 48. Specific reference was made by Mr. Devitre to the observation of the Supreme Court in Kaikhosroo Phirozshaw Doctor vs. State [(1955) ILR Bom 69] to ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:06:51 ::: *52* carbp-442.17(Prysmian)09012019.odt state that the opinion of the Supreme Court even on a point which does not strictly arise must be accepted by the High Court as laying down a statement of law.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - B P Sinha - Full Document

B. Vijaya Bharathi vs P. Savitri . on 10 August, 2017

90. Mr. Chinoy had contended that in view of provisions of section 16(b) and (c)the petitioners are not entitled to specific performance and that the mandatory nature of compliance was well settled law and as observed by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & Anr. vs. Sunil Madan & Anr.(1999) 8 SCC 396 and Raj Kishore(dead) by LRs.vs. Prem Singh & Ors. (2011)1 SCC 657 as also in B. Vijaya Bharathi vs. P Savitri (2018) 11 SCC 761. Mr. Chinoy contended that the legal pre-conditions urged are not technical in ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:06:52 ::: *82* carbp-442.17(Prysmian)09012019.odt nature. They embody basic principles of justice and equity and constitute fundamental principles of law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 52 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse ... vs Sakuma Exports Ltd on 6 October, 2015

The respondents have contended that the decisions in Shri Lal Mahal, M/s. Louis Dreyfus, Richmond Mercantile and Sideralba S.P.A. (supra) are not relevant since they would operate in circumstances prevailing prior to the amendment of the Arbitration Act. The respondents contend that the award is violative of the fundamental policy of Indian law because the petitioner were granted specific performance despite failure to make averments of readiness and willingness which was mandatory. Besides the enforcement of the Award to the extent it contemplated sale of shares is in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The respondents have also contended that merely because they have not challenged the awards in the seat of the Arbitration does not restrict their rights to resist enforcement that they had the option of either challenging the awards at the seat or to resistant enforcement.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 5 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Integrated Sales Services Limited, ... vs Shri. Arun Dev S/O. Govindvishnu ... on 4 January, 2017

A contrary view would mean that 2015 amendment is not to be given effect to. Integrated Sales Services (supra) also follows Shri Lal Mahal (supra). Moreover it notes that the 2015 amendment Explanation 2 prohibits the review on merits of the dispute while considering a challenge to the enforcement on the ground that it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

H.P. Pyarejan vs Dasappa(Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors on 6 February, 2006

91. Mr. Chinoy had relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in H.P. Pyarejan (supra) which dealt with the requirement on the part of the plaintiff to make an averment in the specific performance to the effect that he was always ready and willing to perform the part of the contract and this was the basic principle that the plaintiff must satisfy and that such averment was necessary. The Court held that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff must aver in the plaint and establish the fact by evidence aliunde that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and a party seeking specific performance must manifest that his conduct is blemishless throughout entitling him to specific relief. The provisions imposes a personal bar to grant relief and that pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get relief. Mr. Chinoy submitted that the petitioner not having made such averments, this is one of the crucial grounds available to resist enforcement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 196 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Shri Lal Mahal Ltd vs Progetto Grano Spa on 3 July, 2013

88. Mr. De Vitre had highlighted the fact that decision in Shri Lal Mahal (supra) was rendered prior to the 246 th law commission report and after interpreting the judgments on the case of ONGC v/s. Saw Pipes Ltd. It was held that in case of enforcement of foreign awards, there is a departure from the meaning of "public policy" for the purposes of jurisdiction of the Court for setting aside an award under Section 34. Thus, under Section 48, there was a narrower scope for interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 69 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next