Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936
The Division Bench also referred to the
decision of the Privy Council in the celebrated case of Nazir Ahmed Vs.
King Emperor [(AIR 1936 PC 253], wherein it was categorically laid down
that if an action is required to be taken in a particular manner, it had to
be taken in that manner only or not at all. While observing that all the
aforesaid controversies could have been avoided if the Award had been
served on the party directly, the Division Bench also observed that in view
of Section 2(h) of the 1996 Act, there was no justifiable reason to depart
from the precise definition of the expression “party” which means a party
to the arbitration agreement.
Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti vs Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti And ... on 28 April, 1961
8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar urged that service of the Award on the Advocate for
the party was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 34(3) of
the 1996 Act, as had been held by a Four-Judge Bench of this Court in
Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti vs. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti [1962
(2) SCR 551], which was later followed in East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Agra
Development Authority [(2001) 4 SCC 175]. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that
in Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti’s case (supra) this Court held that
intimation to the pleaders of the parties amounted to service of the notice
on the parties about the filing of the Award.
East India Hotels Ltd vs Agra Development Authority on 21 March, 2001
8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar urged that service of the Award on the Advocate for
the party was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 34(3) of
the 1996 Act, as had been held by a Four-Judge Bench of this Court in
Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti vs. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti [1962
(2) SCR 551], which was later followed in East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Agra
Development Authority [(2001) 4 SCC 175]. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that
in Nilakantha Sidramappa Ningshetti’s case (supra) this Court held that
intimation to the pleaders of the parties amounted to service of the notice
on the parties about the filing of the Award.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs M/S. Ark Builders Pvt.Ltd on 28 February, 2011
9. Mr. Ranjit Kumar also referred to the decision of this Court in State
of Maharashtra Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd.[(2011) 4 SCC 616], in which this
Court, following its earlier decision in Tecco Trechy Engineers’s case
(supra), held that Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act contemplates not merely
the delivery of any kind of copy of the Award, but a copy of the Award
which had been duly signed by the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Learned counsel pointed out that in the said decision, the Hon’ble Judges
had taken note of the fact that an attempt was being made to derive undue
advantage of an omission on the part of the learned Arbitrator to supply
them with a signed copy of the Award, but ultimately held that the same
would not change the legal position and it would be wrong to tailor the law
according to the facts of a particular case.
Pushpa Devi Bhagat (D) Th. Lr.Smt. ... vs Rajinder Singh & Ors on 11 July, 2006
10. As an additional ground, Mr. Ranjit Kumar referred to the use of the
words “signed by parties” under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Order 3 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide that any appearance, application
or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done
by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by
any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in
person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or
acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. Mr. Ranjit Kumar contended that
on the strength of the Vakalatnama executed by the party in favour of his
Advocate/agent, service of notice effected on the Advocate holding such
Vakalatnama amounted to service of the notice on the party himself, as was
held in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh & Ors. [(2006) 5
SCC 566].
National Projects Constructions ... vs Bundela Bandhu Constructions Company on 18 April, 2007
In arriving at its decision which has been impugned in these
proceedings, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court referred to its own
judgment in National Projects Constructions Corporation Limited Vs. Bundela
Bandhu Constgructions Company [AIR 2007 Delhi 202] and a decision of this
Court in Union of India Vs. Tecco Trechy Engineers & Contractors [(2005) 4
SCC 239], which had considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in
Bundela Bandhu’s case (supra).