Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.30 seconds)Section 35 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the issue as to whether
an executing Court can go behind the decree has held in Vasudev Dhanjibhai
Modi (Supra) that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree unless it is
shown that the decree was passed by a Court inherently lacking jurisdiction
and is, therefore, a nullity.
Shivshankar Gurgar vs Dilip on 3 January, 2014
In support of this proposition, he placed
reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasudev
Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others i n (1970) 1 SCC
670; ONGC Limited vs. M/s Modern Construction and Company in (2014) 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 22-01-2026
10:23:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1903
5 AA-186-2025
SCC 648 and in the case of Shivshankar Gurgar vs. Dilip in (2014) 2 SCC
465.
6.5 Learned counsel further submitted that once an arbitral award is
passed, it becomes final and binding in terms of Section 35 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the scope of judicial interference is
limited and can be exercised only in proceedings instituted under Section 34
of the said Act.
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 8 July, 2011
In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd
vs. Jindal Exports Limited in (2011) 8 SCC 333 .
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
12. Similarly, the reliance placed by the executing Court on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Broadband
Network Ltd vs. United Telecoms Ltd. in (2019) 5 SCC 755 , is also
misplaced, as the facts of the said case were entirely different.