Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.30 seconds)Section 31 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors on 16 March, 2005
In the case of
Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers, 2005 (4) SCC
239, it was held that delivery of an arbitral award under
Section 31 (5) of the Act is not a matter of mere formality.
It is a matter of substance. The delivery of arbitral award
to the party to be effective has to be "received" by the
party. Under Section 34 (3) of the Act, the limitation of
three months commences from the date on which the
parties making that application has received the arbitral
award.
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs M/S. Ark Builders Pvt.Ltd on 28 February, 2011
In
the case of State of Maharastra Vs. ARK Builders Pvt Ltd,
2011 (4) SCC 616, it was held that the expression "party
making the application has received the arbitral award"
State Of H.P.& Anr vs M/S Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr on 26 July, 2010
In the case of State of
Himanchal Vs. Himanchal Techno Engineers, 2010 (12)
SCC 2010, it was held that the delivery has to be effective,
so as to be called as receipt by the parties.
Maruthi Apartments Owners/Residents ... vs K.V.Narasimhan on 21 March, 2019
20. In the instant case, there is no proof as to the
delivery of the signed copy of the award on the petitioner.
The case of Maruthi Apartments Vs. K. V. Narasimhan,
O.P. Diary No. 116747/2018, decided on 21.03.2019,
referred by the respondents is distinguishable on facts. In
that case, the entire arbitral records pertaining to the award
were made available to the Court.
Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019
Following the
ratio of the judgments in Bharat Broadband Network
Limited Vs. United Telecoms Limited, CA No. 3973 of
2019 decided on 16.04.2019, the mandate of the Arbitrator
was terminated de jure.