Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Kanpur Jal Sansthan vs M/S Bapu Constructions on 3 January, 2014
By the said judgment, considering the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Jalasangasthan
Vs. Bapu Construction, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 267 and the
provisions contained in Proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 36
of the 1996 Act, read with sub-Rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XXXXI
and Rules (8-A) and (8-B) of Order XLI of the Code, this Court
held that the Union of Indian, as "the Government" within the
meaning of the said term under Rule (8-B) of Order XLI of the
Code, it is entitled to obtain unconditional stay of operation of
an arbitral award directing payment of money. The petitioner
4
further submitted that the said judgment dated September 5, 2018
passed by this Court was challenged by the respondent in the said
application, G.A. No. 1903 of 2018, with A.P. No. 1121 of 2016
before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.25765 of 2018 which was
rejected on December 3, 2018. Urging these grounds, the petitioner
pressed for an order for unconditional stay of operation of the
arbitral award.
Union Of India vs Amitava Paul on 4 March, 2015
The respondent, however, raised strong objection to the
prayer of the petitioner for unconditional stay of operation of
the impugned arbitral award. According to the respondent, in the
said judgment dated September 5, 2018 passed in GA No.1903 of 2018
with AP No.1121 of 2016, this Court followed the Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Amitava
Pal, reported in AIR 2015 CAL 189 and held that the petitioner
therein had filed the application for stay of operation of the
impugned award without undue delay. According to the respondent,
in the said judgment, this Court further held that the petitioner
in the said application, GA No.1903 of 2018 with AP No.1121 of
2016 had stated that unless operation of the impugned award is
stayed, it would suffer financial losses which is public money. It
was stressed that in the present case, the arbitrator made the
impugned award on October 29, 2014 and thereafter, an application
was filed for setting aside of the impugned arbitral award.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 3 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Palm Development Pvt. Ltd on 5 September, 2018
It was
submitted that thogh on March 15, 2018, the decision of the
5
Supreme Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket of India
(Supra) was passed and it was only on September 10, 2018 the
petitioner filed this application. Thus, according to the
respondent, in the present case, it cannot be held that the
petitioner has filed this application without undue delay. It was
further submitted that the petitioner has not been able to
substantiate any case of suffering any irreparable loss or injury
being suffered without an unconditional stay of operation of the
arbitral award. Urging all these grounds, respondent prays for
rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for unconditional stay
of operation of the arbitral award.
1