Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.25 seconds)Section 34 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Interest Act, 1978
South East Asia Marine Engineering And ... vs Oil India Limited on 11 May, 2020
48. The above principles concerning the scope of the powers
to be exercised by a Court under Section 34 of the ACA are
culled out in the several precedents on the subject, including
but not restricted to South East Asia Marine Engineering &
Construction Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (supra), Renusagar Power
Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co. (supra), S. Pandi Meenakshi
vs. Hinduja Leyland (supra), M.R. Hitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Union of India (supra) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Limited (supra). Therefore, the challenge to the impugned
arbitral award will have to be examined, bearing in mind the
restrictive parameters of Section 34 of the ACA.
S.Pandi Meenakshi vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd on 3 April, 2019
48. The above principles concerning the scope of the powers
to be exercised by a Court under Section 34 of the ACA are
culled out in the several precedents on the subject, including
but not restricted to South East Asia Marine Engineering &
Construction Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (supra), Renusagar Power
Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co. (supra), S. Pandi Meenakshi
vs. Hinduja Leyland (supra), M.R. Hitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Union of India (supra) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Limited (supra). Therefore, the challenge to the impugned
arbitral award will have to be examined, bearing in mind the
restrictive parameters of Section 34 of the ACA.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
48. The above principles concerning the scope of the powers
to be exercised by a Court under Section 34 of the ACA are
culled out in the several precedents on the subject, including
but not restricted to South East Asia Marine Engineering &
Construction Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd. (supra), Renusagar Power
Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co. (supra), S. Pandi Meenakshi
vs. Hinduja Leyland (supra), M.R. Hitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Union of India (supra) and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Limited (supra). Therefore, the challenge to the impugned
arbitral award will have to be examined, bearing in mind the
restrictive parameters of Section 34 of the ACA.
Section 31 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995
And another12, Vijay Kumar vs. Om Prakash13, N. P.
Thirungnanam vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others 14, Shri
Chandrashekhar vs. M/s. Yogi Construction and another 15 in
support of these contentions.