Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.83 seconds)Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors on 16 March, 2005
103. The respondent in the present case alleges that consent was given to the
said request under Section 21 on December 31, 2019. The said response
giving consent, surprisingly, was not served on the petitioner or even alleged
to be so served, although it was by way of a "response" to the petitioner‟s
notice. Moreover, it came forth after a long hiatus of about seven months
from the Section 21 notice. Under the scheme of the 1996 Act, as reiterated
in Tecco Trichy (supra) 11, several provisions and limitation periods are
pressed into action upon the refusal to accede to a notice under Section 21.
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
91. However, the above sub-sections are couched in such language as to
intrinsically link one with the other. Notably, sub-section (2-A) of Section 34
8
State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd., reported at (2022) 2 SCC 275
9
Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, reported at (2019) 15 SCC 131
10
Welspun Specialty Solutions Ltd. v. ONGC, reported at (2022) 2 SCC 382
31
2026:CHC-OS:88
uses the expression "may also be set aside". The term "also" links the said
sub-section with sub-section (2) which, in turn, requires an application
under sub-section (1) of Section 34 to set it into motion.