Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 68 (1.55 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
Where the appeals before the Division Bench are preferred
against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge, the appellate
court will not interfere with such exercise of discretion by the court
of first instance, and substitute its own discretion, except where
the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily,
or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored settled
principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory orders.
An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on
principle. The appellate court will not reassess the material and
seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the
court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably
possible on the material. The appellate court would, normally, not
be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under
appeal solely on the ground that, if it had considered the matter at
the trial stage, it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the
discretion has been exercised by the learned Single Judge
reasonably, and in a judicious manner, the fact that the appellate
court would have taken a different view may not justify
interference with the learned Single Judges exercise of discretion.
The appellate court would not interfere with the exercise of
discretion by the learned Single Judge unless such exercise is
found to be palpably incorrect or untenable or if the view taken by
the Learned Single Judge is not a possible view. (Wander Ltd. v.
Antox India (P) Ltd.21; Mohd. Mehtab Khan20). No reasons have
been assigned by the Learned Single Judge, in the order under
appeal, in justification of the exercise of discretion to suspend the
order of the Tribunal. It is only if reasons are assigned would an
appellate Court be in a position to judge whether or not the order
under appeal suffers from non-application of mind.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Peddapudi Seshagiri Rao vs Andhra University, Rep. By Its ... on 8 November, 1995
In Peddapudi Seshagiri Rao v. Andhra University rep by
its Registrar , a Division Bench of this Court held that the right of
appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is available against
such interlocutory orders which are orders of moment, and where
there is likely to be irreparable injury if there is no interference by
the Court in the exercise of its appellate power.
Innovative Pharma Surgicals vs Pigeon Medical Devices (P) Ltd. And Ors. on 19 April, 2004
In Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical
Devices (P) Ltd. , a Division Bench of this Court held that an
appeal against an ad interim injunction order, passed under Order
39 Rule 1 C.P.C, is maintainable; and though an appeal is
maintainable, such an appeal should be filed only in an extra-
ordinary circumstance under which the party is able to explain as
to why he prefers an appeal in the High Court instead of choosing
to file a petition to vacate the ad-interim injunction.
Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from
the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate
jurisdiction. An appeal does not lie to the Division bench of the
same High Court against every order passed by a Single Judge of
the High Court. It is only against a judgment would an intra-
Court Appeal lie. (Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania ;
H. Kondal Reddy v. Central Bank of India, Hyderabad ; B.F.
Pushpaleela Devi v. State of A.P ). The word judgment, in
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, should receive a much wider and
more liberal interpretation than the word judgment used in the
Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time all orders passed by the
Single Judge would not amount to a judgment, otherwise there
would be no end to the number of orders which would be
appealable under the Letters Patent. The word judgment has,
undoubtedly, a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower
sense.
H. Kondal Reddy vs Central Bank Of India, Hyderabad And ... on 22 November, 2001
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from
the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate
jurisdiction. An appeal does not lie to the Division bench of the
same High Court against every order passed by a Single Judge of
the High Court. It is only against a judgment would an intra-
Court Appeal lie. (Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania ;
H. Kondal Reddy v. Central Bank of India, Hyderabad ; B.F.
Pushpaleela Devi v. State of A.P ). The word judgment, in
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, should receive a much wider and
more liberal interpretation than the word judgment used in the
Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time all orders passed by the
Single Judge would not amount to a judgment, otherwise there
would be no end to the number of orders which would be
appealable under the Letters Patent. The word judgment has,
undoubtedly, a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower
sense.
B.F. Pushpaleela Devi vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Its Secretary, ... on 7 August, 2002
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from
the Courts of original jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate
jurisdiction. An appeal does not lie to the Division bench of the
same High Court against every order passed by a Single Judge of
the High Court. It is only against a judgment would an intra-
Court Appeal lie. (Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania ;
H. Kondal Reddy v. Central Bank of India, Hyderabad ; B.F.
Pushpaleela Devi v. State of A.P ). The word judgment, in
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, should receive a much wider and
more liberal interpretation than the word judgment used in the
Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time all orders passed by the
Single Judge would not amount to a judgment, otherwise there
would be no end to the number of orders which would be
appealable under the Letters Patent. The word judgment has,
undoubtedly, a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower
sense.
Employer In Relation To Managment Of ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 25 January, 2001
(Shah Babulal Khimji8; Central Mine Planning and
Design Institute Ltd. v. Union of India ).