Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Datar Switchgears Ltd vs Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr on 18 October, 2000
We are only concerned with reading of 30 days within sub-
section (6) of Section 11. So far as the period of 30 days with
regard to Section 11(6) is concerned, there is no manner of
doubt that their Lordships had not invoked 30 days as
mandatory period under Section 11(6) and beyond that it
cannot be invoked by the appointing authority. Therefore, it is
Arbitration Case No.23 of 2008 8
totally a misnomer to read 30 days in section 11(6) of the Act,
though Shri Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant tried to emphasise that the decision in Datar
Switchgears Ltd.'s case (supra) has been affirmed by a three-
Judge Bench and therefore, that 30 days should be read in
Section 11(6) of the Act is also not correct".
Ace Pipeline Contracts Private Limited vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 4 April, 2007
In spite of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondents, that a view different to the one adopted by the Supreme Court
(in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner) had
been taken in ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd.'s case (supra), it is not
possible for me to concur with the submission of the learned counsel for
the respondents. I am satisfied from a plain reading of the conclusions
drawn hereinabiove, that the earlier judgments rendered by the Supreme
Court (referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner) were duly
followed, and no divergent view was taken by the Apex Court.
Northn. Rly. Admn., Min.Of Railway, N.D vs Patel Engineering Company Ltd on 18 August, 2008
Finally, the attention of this Court was invited by the learned
counsel for the respondents to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in
Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi v. Patel
Engineering Company Ltd., 2008(10) SCC 240. Although the judgment
was extensively read by the learned counsel for the respondents during the
hearing of the present case, yet in spite of specific queries made by the
Bench learned counsel for the respondent could not invite the Court's
attention to any observation wherein a conclusion contrary to the one
recorded in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, had been taken.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1