Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.39 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala on 23 September, 2019
This Fiza Developers
principle was subsequently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Emkay Global case [Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Girdhar
Sondhi reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49] and in Canara Nidhi Limited case
[M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala reported in 2019 SCC
Online SC 1244]. Fiza Developers principle is to the effect that section
34 proceedings are one issue summary proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme
Court made it clear that one issue means that arbitral award being put to
challenge itself becomes an issue. The sequitter that flows from this is it
does not mean that the lis should turn on one issue. In Emkay Global,
Fiza Developers principle was held to be a step in the right direction and
24/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.P.Nos.868 and 869 of 2016
it was again reiterated in Canara Nidhi Limited. The sum and substance
of core principle underlying these case laws is that section 34 legal drill
is a one issue summary procedure.
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009
In this regard, Ferro Concrete case being State of
Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 1 and Ennore Port Limited case being Ennore Port
Limited Vs. Skanska Cementation India Limited reported in 2007 SCC
OnLine Mad 782 were pressed into service. Owing to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, these case laws do not come to the aid
of the protagonist of captioned O.Ps, i.e., said school in their efforts to
dislodge impugned awards, as these case laws are for the proposition that
claim by itself cannot be considered as proof and there cannot be an
award of damages when there is no evidence.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
In this regard, Ferro Concrete case being State of
Rajasthan Vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 1 and Ennore Port Limited case being Ennore Port
Limited Vs. Skanska Cementation India Limited reported in 2007 SCC
OnLine Mad 782 were pressed into service. Owing to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, these case laws do not come to the aid
of the protagonist of captioned O.Ps, i.e., said school in their efforts to
dislodge impugned awards, as these case laws are for the proposition that
claim by itself cannot be considered as proof and there cannot be an
award of damages when there is no evidence.