Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.38 seconds)
Pragati Engineering (P) Ltd. And Others vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage ... on 7 March, 1991
cites
General Electric Company vs Renusagar Power Company on 11 August, 1987
22. It has been held by the Supreme Court in General Electric v. Renusagar Power Company (supra) that a step in the proceeding which would disentitle the defendant from invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration Act should be a step in aid of the progress of the suit or submission to the jurisdiction of the Court for the purpose of adjudication of the merits of the controversy in the suit. The step must be such as to manifest the intention of the party unequivocally to abandon the right under the arbitration agreement and instead to opt to have the dispute resolved on merits in the suit. The step must be such as to indicate an election or affirmation in favour of the suit in the place of the arbitration. The election or affirmation may be by express choise or by necessary implication by acquiescence.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr vs Janki Saran Kailash Chandra & Anr on 23 April, 1973
The Division Bench referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Janki Saran has expressed the view that the Supreme Court has not laid down any rule of law that whenever such a period would have elapsed in between the commencement of the legal proceeding and final hearing of the said matter the delay in disposing of the same should always be taken into consideration. The Division Bench negatived this contention that once the time to file written statement in suit is allowed to expire, the appellant for stay cannot maintain the application. The Court observed that what was necessary was that the application must have been made before filing of the written statement and the section in clear term required that it must be the actual filing of the written statement, and not before the time of filing of the written statement had expired. It may be true that delay in filing an application for stay of the suit may have some bearing on the discretion to be used by the Court in the matter of staying the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is not in dispute that relief under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is discretionary and in using the discretion of the Court may consider the question of delay. But that itself does not lead to this conclusion that the application for stay of the suit should have been made before the time for filing the written statement under the rules of our Court had expired. We, therefore, do not accept the contention of the appellant that the application for stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act should have been filed before the time for filing written statement had expired.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Smt. Janki Devi And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
21. The law on this point has now been settled by the Supreme Court in a few later decision of the Supreme Court, State of U.P. v. Janki Saran, AIR 1982 SC 1302 Food Corporation of India v. Jadav Engineer; General Electric Supply Company v. Renusagar Power Co. and a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh Ghuman v. Food Corporation of India .
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs Yadav Engineer & Contractor on 6 August, 1982
21. The law on this point has now been settled by the Supreme Court in a few later decision of the Supreme Court, State of U.P. v. Janki Saran, AIR 1982 SC 1302 Food Corporation of India v. Jadav Engineer; General Electric Supply Company v. Renusagar Power Co. and a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh Ghuman v. Food Corporation of India .
Sadhu Singh Ghuman vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors on 14 February, 1990
21. The law on this point has now been settled by the Supreme Court in a few later decision of the Supreme Court, State of U.P. v. Janki Saran, AIR 1982 SC 1302 Food Corporation of India v. Jadav Engineer; General Electric Supply Company v. Renusagar Power Co. and a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh Ghuman v. Food Corporation of India .
International Airport Authority Of ... vs K.D. Bali & Another on 29 March, 1988
We have also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in K.D. Ball's case (supra) . We, therefore, do not accept this contention of the appellant and we reject such contention.
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Renusagar Power Company Ltd vs General Electric Company And Anr on 16 August, 1984
12. It is submitted by the respondent that the disputes as disclosed in the plaint filed by the appellant are such that they do not fall within any of the said Clauses referred to by the appellant. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that in respect of the matters for which the Executive Engineers' decision has been made final will not form part of the disputes between the parties as disclosed in the plaint in the suit. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that in any event, the Arbitration Clause being of a wide amplitude, any dispute or differences between the parties to the contract as to the interpretation of the contract or as to any matter or thing arising thereunder, the Arbitrator will have jurisdiction to decide such disputes, including the question as to whether a particular disputes falls within the excepted clauses or not. The respondent has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Renusacar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. Reported in .