Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.71 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S Gail(I) Limited vs Bal Kishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd on 7 August, 2008
25. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
case of Gail India Limited Vs. Bal Kishan Agarwal Glass Industries Pvt Ltd.
Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974
45.
In the impugned order, the learned arbitrator observed that the claim was not in
the nature of un-liquidated damages. Though the arbitral tribunal made these
observations and adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of
India vs.Raman Iron Foundry (supra) was oblivious of the fact that the counter claim
of the respondent was more than the claim of the petitioner.
Intertoll Ics Cecons. O & M Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs National Highways Authority Of India on 4 February, 2013
5.6 In support of his submissions, Mr. Kaul relied upon a
judgment of a single Judge of this Court in the case of
Intertoll ICS Cecons. O & M Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. National
Highways Authority of India, 197 (2013) DLT 473.
Firm Ashok Traders And Anr. Etc vs Gurumukh Das Saluja And Ors. Etc on 9 January, 2004
17. By an order dated 19th May, 2014 the learned arbitrator rejected the application
filed by the petitioner before this court under section 9 which was treated as an
application under section 17 on the ground that at this stage it was not necessary to
go into the details of the merits of the claim and counter claim since evidence was yet
to be led. It is held that both the parties are disputing the correctness of the
documents produced and the accuracy of the amounts mentioned therein. Though the
claim is not in the nature of unliquidated damages, the amount of alleged liability of
the respondent is yet to be ascertained. The learned arbitrator also noticed that as
against the claim of USD 2495809.75, there was a counter claim of USD
::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2014 23:53:01 :::
9 arbp-1127.2014.doc
16398542.61. The learned arbitrator after referring to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in case of Firm Ashok Traders Vs. Gurmukhdas Saluja and Ors. (2004) 3
SCC 155 and judgment of Supreme Court in case of Gail India Limited Vs. Lal
Kishan Agarwal Industries Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 161 and judgment of Delhi High Court
in case of Intertole ICS Cecons O & M Company Vs. National Highways Authority
of India (2013) ILR 2 Delhi 1018 held that a bare perusal of language used in section
9 elaborating different interim measures under clause (i) and (ii) shows the width and
amplitude of the court's powers as compared to the limited power of the arbitral
tribunal under section 17 ordering a party to take any interim measure or protection in
respect of the subject matter of the dispute. It is held that it was not possible to hold
that the claimant had made out a case at this stage for passing an interim order as
prayed in terms of prayer clause (a) or (b) and rejected the said application. The
learned arbitrator however, made it clear that he had not expressed any views on the
merits of the claim, since the evidence was yet to be laid and what was stated in that
order was merely for the purpose of deciding of the said application under section 17
of the Act.
Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 5 May, 2006
6.6 In support of his contention, Mr. Goswami has relied
upon the following judgments :- Wander Ltd. and Anr. Vs.
Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727; Sabh
Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Jay Shree Bagley and Anr., passed
in FAO (OS) 583/2009 and CM No.16992/2009 on
23.12.2009; and Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. Vs.
Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai and Ors.,(2006) 5
SCC 282.