Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.53 seconds)
Sikkim Power Development Corporation ... vs M/S Amalgamated Transpower(India) Ltd on 7 October, 2021
cites
Section 36 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Manish vs Godawari Marathawada Irrigation ... on 26 September, 2018
the Arbitration Act, which came into effect from 23.10.2015, in
order to obtain a Stay of operation of the Arbitral Award, the party
assailing the Award may file an application seeking such relief from
the Court. The Court, in turn, has the discretion to consider the
prayer and grant Stay of operation of the Arbitral Award, subject to
conditions that it may impose as deemed fit. As per Section 36(3)
of the Arbitration Act, however, when the party seeks Stay of the
operation of the Arbitral Award for payment of money, the Court is
to consider the provisions for grant of Stay of a Money Decree
under the provisions of Order XLI of the CPC. The argument of
Learned Counsel for the Appellants that the Court is only to be
guided by the provisions of the CPC and there is no mandate that
the Code is to be complied with cannot be countenanced, in view of
the specific direction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as laid down in
Manish vs. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation
supra and the discussions that have emanated in Board of Control
for Cricket in India supra. Thus, while considering the prayer of the
Appellants for grant of Stay of the operation of the Arbitral Award
made against them for payment of money, this Court is required to
follow the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd And ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 31 October, 2018
Procedure, 1908 (for short, the "CPC"). That, the Appellants could
not have sought a Stay of the Arbitral Award without satisfying the
necessary legal conditions and without complying with the
mandatory requirements of depositing the awarded amount in
Court. That, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 as amended in 2015, are applicable to the present case as
the proceedings before the Learned Commercial Court was initiated
subsequent to 23.10.2015. Referring to the decision of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket
Private Limited and Others1 reconfirmed by a three Judge Bench of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company
Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Others2, it was urged that
the Appellants must deposit the amount awarded by the Arbitral
Tribunal, which was concurrently upheld by the Learned
Commercial Court while dealing with the case under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended.