Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (1.01 seconds)Section 36 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Sh H D Nautiyal vs Avinas K Srivastava on 11 January, 2018
9. Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that the objection raised by
the petitioner regarding impleadment of parties is misconceived. The
Late Sh. V. K. Srivastava has expired on 17.11.2022 which was duly
communicated to the claimant on 18.11.2022.Thereafter, the
claimant/respondent filed application on 31.01.2023 to bring on record
the legal representatives of Late Sh. V. K. Srivastava within 90 days.
Thereafter, moved another application dated 16.10.2023 to implead
other LRs and surviving spouse (Ms. Sangeeta Srivastava), and notice
dated 17.03.2024 was also issued by the Ld. Arbitrator to LRs and Ms.
Sangeeta Srivastava, but all the notices returned with the remark as
'addressee could not be located' . Thereafter, on 29.03.2023 a request
was made to Mr. Rudra Srivastava to provide correct particulars of the
LRs. Furthermore, the petitioner sought adjournment through email
dated 10.05.2023 and 10.06.2023 and further failed to participate in
arbitration proceedings on 23.07.2023 and 19.08.2023. In view of
repeated defaults and deliberate non-participation and considering that
the mandate of the arbitral proceedings was due to expire on
14.09.2023, the Sole Arbitrator was constrained to proceed ex-parte
vide order dated 19.08.2023.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Arg Outlier Media Private Limited vs Ht Media Limited on 4 July, 2023
argument. Counsel for the Claimant Mr. Hasija countered-argued in
rebuttal and already referred to Section 36 of the Stamp Act and had
relied upon Delhi High Court judgment in ARG Outliar Media Pvt.
Ltd. v. HT Media Ltd. OMP (Comm) 161/2023, decided on 4.7.2023.