Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S S.B.P. & Co vs M/S Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr on 26 October, 2005
An order passed by a Chief Justice or his nominee under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the 1996 Act may be a judicial order, as has been held by a Seven Judge Bench of this court in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618 : 2005(3) Arb. LR 285 (SC) but the same does not take away the effect of the appellate jurisdiction to be exercised by a court under Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
Article 225 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 15 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Uttam Singh Dugal And Co. Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel ... on 30 September, 1981
10. Although an interim award is included in the definition of "arbitral award" contained in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, in order to treat the order dated 06.05.2006 (Annexure R/1) as an interim award it should fulfil the requisites of an award. The Division Bench decision in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai reported as has held "before an order of the arbitrators may be held to be an interim award, it must decide a part of the claim or an issue of liability. What the arbitrators did in this case was to decide a preliminary issue relating to their jurisdiction. As the order of the arbitrators does not decide the claim or even any part of the claim of any issue of liability, it cannot be held to be an interim award".