Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.49 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 37 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Narayan Prasad Lohia vs Nikunj Kumar Lohia & Ors on 20 February, 2002
I am
respectfully bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and Ors. (supra)
which is applicable to the facts of this case.
M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. vs National Highways Authority Of India & ... on 8 May, 2009
I am bound to accept the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which is applicable to the
facts of this case and not the judgment of the learned Single Judge in
which the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. (supra) has been declared as per incurium.
Section 12 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Food Corpn. Of India vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 15 February, 1994
21. Learned counsel distinguished the judgments relied upon
by Mr.Seksaria, learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that all
the judgments referred to and relied upon by the petitioner had
::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2015 23:58:50 :::
ppn 16 arbp-653.11(j).doc
considered the unamended provision of Section 28 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872 and not the amended provision. The facts in this matter are
totally different and those judgments would not assist the case of the
petitioner. It is submitted that in so far as the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Indramani Pyarelal Gupta and Ors.
(supra) is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India
Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra) in which the Supreme
Court has considered unamended Section 28 of the Indian Contract
Act, 1872.