Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)
Ai Champdany Industries Limited vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 27 September, 2019 cites

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs G. Harischandra Reddy And Anr on 10 January, 2007

On the power to modify an award, Mr. Saha has referred to Krishan Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 (paragraph 11), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 172 (paragraph 21), Union of India v. Arctic India (2007) 4 ArbLR 524 (Bom) (paragraphs 26), and Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd. (2008) 3 ArbLR 489 (Del) (paragraph 23-25).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 316 - Full Document

Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Friends Coal Carbonisation on 4 April, 2006

On the power to modify an award, Mr. Saha has referred to Krishan Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 (paragraph 11), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 172 (paragraph 21), Union of India v. Arctic India (2007) 4 ArbLR 524 (Bom) (paragraphs 26), and Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd. (2008) 3 ArbLR 489 (Del) (paragraph 23-25).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 218 - Full Document

The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply ... vs Union Of India on 5 February, 2003

On the power to modify an award, Mr. Saha has referred to Krishan Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 (paragraph 11), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 172 (paragraph 21), Union of India v. Arctic India (2007) 4 ArbLR 524 (Bom) (paragraphs 26), and Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd. (2008) 3 ArbLR 489 (Del) (paragraph 23-25).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 31 - B P Singh - Full Document

Kinnari Mullick vs Ghanshyam Das Damani on 20 April, 2017

On the power to remand, Mr. Saha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has relied on Kinnari Mullick and Anr. v. Ghanshyam Das Damani (2018) 11 SCC 328 and Radha Chemicals v. Union of India (decision dated 10th October 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10386 of 2018) to submit that the court does 3 not enjoy a power of remand to remit the matter back to the arbitrator once it has been set aside.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 157 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

The respondent relies on paragraph 52 of McDermott International Inc v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181 to submit that the role of the courts for review of arbitral awards is to ensure fairness and that there is a limited channel for interference. It is submitted that McDermott International has categorically held that under section 34, a civil court has the power to only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Caprihans India Limited vs Hindoostan Mills Limited on 3 June, 2019

It is submitted that this dictum has been followed by a number of courts including our court in Efcalon Tie UP Private Limited v. Star Track Agency Limited 2017 SCC Online Cal 9263 (paragraph 10), the Delhi High Court in Puri Construction Private Limited v. Larsen & Turbo Limited 2015 SCC Online Del 9126 and the Bombay High Court in Caprihans India Ltd. v. Hindoostan Mills Limited 2019 SCC Online Bom 906. It is 4 submitted that the power under section 34 is a power of annulment and not a power of appeal and the scope is limited to setting aside or affirmation of the award and nothing beyond.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - K R Shriram - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Modern Laminators Ltd on 20 August, 2008

On the power to modify an award, Mr. Saha has referred to Krishan Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 (paragraph 11), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 172 (paragraph 21), Union of India v. Arctic India (2007) 4 ArbLR 524 (Bom) (paragraphs 26), and Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd. (2008) 3 ArbLR 489 (Del) (paragraph 23-25).
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Arctic India on 13 March, 2006

On the power to modify an award, Mr. Saha has referred to Krishan Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G. Harischandra Reddy and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 720 (paragraph 11), Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 SCC 445, The Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 172 (paragraph 21), Union of India v. Arctic India (2007) 4 ArbLR 524 (Bom) (paragraphs 26), and Union of India v. Modern Laminators Ltd. (2008) 3 ArbLR 489 (Del) (paragraph 23-25).
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - S K Mukherjee - Full Document

Efcalon Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd vs Star Track Agency Pvt. Ltd on 26 March, 2019

It is submitted that this dictum has been followed by a number of courts including our court in Efcalon Tie UP Private Limited v. Star Track Agency Limited 2017 SCC Online Cal 9263 (paragraph 10), the Delhi High Court in Puri Construction Private Limited v. Larsen & Turbo Limited 2015 SCC Online Del 9126 and the Bombay High Court in Caprihans India Ltd. v. Hindoostan Mills Limited 2019 SCC Online Bom 906. It is 4 submitted that the power under section 34 is a power of annulment and not a power of appeal and the scope is limited to setting aside or affirmation of the award and nothing beyond.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next