Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Marketing Manager,The Fertilizer ... vs M/S. L.M.Hati & Co. on 18 June, 2014 cites

N. Chellappan vs Secretary, Kerala State Electricity ... on 21 November, 1974

7. Apart from the aforesaid proposition of law, it has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Chellappan v. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board and another, AIR 1975 SC 230 that when a party participates in an arbitral proceeding without any demur to his jurisdiction, the only inference from this conduct on the part of such a party is that, it had no objection to the order appointing an Arbitrator for adjudication to its disputes. Therefore, by acquiescence a party who has participated, was precluded from challenging the issue of the Arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 162 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Prasun Roy vs Calcutta Metropolitan ... on 20 July, 1987

This judgment is also 12 supported by the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasun Roy v. The Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority and another, AIR 1988 SC 205 wherein the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji (as His Lordship the then was) came to hold that, although the parties aware from the beginning that by reason of some disability, the matter is legally incapable of submitting matters to arbitration, participation in the arbitral proceeding without protest and fully avails of the entire arbitration proceedings and then when he sees that the award has gone against him, he comes forward to challenge the whole of the arbitration proceedings as without jurisdiction on the ground of known disability, the same cannot be allowed. This principle applies both before and after making of the Award. The principle is that, a party shall not be allowed to blow hot and cold simultaneously. Long participation and acquiescence in the proceeding preclude such a party from contending that the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 96 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Executive Engineer Irrigation ... vs Abaaduta Jena on 22 September, 1987

Insofar as the issue of pendete lite interest is concerned, it has been well settled by the Hon'ble apex Court that unless there appears to be a mistake on the face of the award and the documents appended or incorporated thereto which forms part of the award, such an award cannot be set aside even with respect to interest part of it. Insofar as this issue of pendete lite interest is concerned, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala and others v. Abhaduta Jena, AIR 1988 SC 1520 denying the interest pendente lite, came to be set aside by later Constitution Bench, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Odisha v. G.C.Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732 where it came to hold that the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala (supra) did not a good law. The Constitutional Bench came to hold that an Arbitrator was competent and possessed the necessary power to award interest pendente lite.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 152 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991

Insofar as the issue of pendete lite interest is concerned, it has been well settled by the Hon'ble apex Court that unless there appears to be a mistake on the face of the award and the documents appended or incorporated thereto which forms part of the award, such an award cannot be set aside even with respect to interest part of it. Insofar as this issue of pendete lite interest is concerned, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala and others v. Abhaduta Jena, AIR 1988 SC 1520 denying the interest pendente lite, came to be set aside by later Constitution Bench, in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Odisha v. G.C.Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732 where it came to hold that the decision in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala (supra) did not a good law. The Constitutional Bench came to hold that an Arbitrator was competent and possessed the necessary power to award interest pendente lite.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 639 - K N Singh - Full Document
1