Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)
Sohani Granites Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Its ... vs Binny Ltd., Rep. By Its Executive ... on 4 April, 2002
cites
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 80 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs M/S. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd on 14 October, 1977
In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GEETA IRON & BRASS WORKS, . In that case Section 80 notice was issued before filing the suit. The defendant was silent on receipt of the said notice. It was held that Section 80 C.P.C., notice is intended to alert the State to negotiate a just settlement or at least have the courtesy to tell the potential outsider why the claim is being resisted. In the above decision itself it is categorically stated that as a matter of law mere silence on the part of the defendant when a notice under Section 80 C.P.C., is sent to him may not, without more, disentitle him to move under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and seek a stay. This decision also does not help the plaintiff in the present suit.
Srivenkateswara Constructions And ... vs The Union Of India on 17 July, 1973
3. I would now consider the other objections raised by the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner the defendant shall be ready and willing not only on the date of the arbitration agreement but also on the date of filing of the petition to refer the dispute for arbitration and when such readiness and willingness is not established by the defendant, the petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed. He relied upon the decisions in SRIVENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1974 AP 278 and M. VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. N. SUBBARAO, AIR 1984 AP 200. These two decisions have been rendered on applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In my considered opinion those two decisions have no application to the petitions filed under Section 8 of the New Act. There is significant difference between the two provisions. To make the position clear, I extract hereunder the provision in Section 34 of the Old Act and Section 8 of the New Act.