Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)Article 22 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
P.V. Subba Naidu And Ors. vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 11 November, 1997
K.R.Raveendranathan case is a short one, whereas in P.V.Subba Naidu case,
the principle in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs.State of J & K
case has been reiterated.
Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P.Ltd vs Amci (I) P.Ltd.& Anr on 27 July, 2009
33. Be that as it may, in my considered view, Fiza Developers case
http://www.judis.nic.in
17
pressed into service supra, i.e, reported in (2009) 17 SCC 796, is an
authority for the proposition that proceedings under Section 34 of A & C Act
are one issue summary procedures.
S.A.Fasluddin vs S.M.A.Siyauddin on 11 November, 2011
22. Therefore, there is a notice and that notice has been marked
before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal has also alluded to the
same. Therefore, S.A.Fasludeen case is clearly distinguishable on facts and
it does not help the petitioners in the instant case.
The State Of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti ... on 30 July, 2018
To be
noted, Bhumi Vikas Bank case is an authority for the principle that notice
contemplated under Sub-Section (5) of Section 34 is directory and not
mandatory.
M/S Emkay Global Financial Services ... vs Gindhar Sondhi on 20 August, 2018
This Fiza Developers Principle i.e, that
proceedings under Section 34 of A & C Act are one issue summary
procedures was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent
judgment in Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Girdhar Sondhi
reported in (2018) 9 SCC 49. While reiterating the Fiza Developers
principle Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Fiza Developers principle is a
step in the right direction for expeditious disposal of a petition under
Section 34 of A & C Act. This is more so, in the light of the time frame that
has been fixed by the statute itself in Sub-Section (6) of Section 34.
Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Case is
reported in AIR 1992 SC 2192. The principle therein is that an award is a
non-speaking order when it contains no reasoning. The scope of the court's
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
jurisdiction to interfere with an award has been held to be extremely
limited.
K.R. Raveendranathan vs State Of Kerala And Anr. on 13 August, 1993
K.R.Raveendranathan case is a short one, whereas in P.V.Subba Naidu case,
the principle in Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs.State of J & K
case has been reiterated.
1