Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
M/S.Dredging Corporation Of India vs M/S. Shoft Shipyard Private Limited on 4 October, 2024 cites

Union Territory Of Ladakh vs Jammu And Kashmir National Conference on 6 September, 2023

In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference2. The learned counsel while submitting that these matters require some detailed examination, that there is no straight jacket formula for granting of interim stay on condition of depositing a particular percentage of amount awarded and there is no dispute about the applicability of Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure either to an application under Section 34 or an Appeal 1 (2021) 9 SCC 1 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140 7 under Section 37 of the Act, pleads for interim stay of execution of the Judgments and Decrees, subject to payment of 50% of the decretal amount, else the appellant, a Government of India Undertaking would suffer great hardship, serious prejudice and irreparable loss.
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - V Nath - Full Document

M/S Larsen Air Conditioning And ... vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2023

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Manish vs Godawari Marathawada Irrigation ... on 26 September, 2018

In Manish's case referred to supra, the High Court of Bombay granted interim stay pending disposal of an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act on condition of depositing 60% of the awarded amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the stay order and while stating that since these are money decrees, there should be 100% deposit, permitted the respondents therein to withdraw the amount deposited by furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Kanpur Jal Sansthan vs M/S Bapu Constructions on 3 January, 2014

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 46 - Cited by 21 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next