Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 81 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd vs Progetto Grano Spa on 3 July, 2013
9.4 The judgment in Phulchand was overruled by a
three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa20 and the
narrow interpretation in Renusagar was held to be
applicable in the context of Section 48 of the 1996 Act.
Toepfer International Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. on 15 November, 2007
"1'3 Toepfer International Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Prryanka Overseas Pvt; Ltd. 2007(4JARB LR
499(Delhi]
19 2011(11) SCALE 475
29 (2014) 2 SCC 433
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
The
Supreme Court's decision was followed by a
subsequent tWO~judge bench in Associate Builders v.
Delhi Development Authority22 dated 25.11.2014. In
the words of Supreme Court in Western Geco:
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
under Section 34.8
7.4 Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in Renusagar
Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric 00.9 ("Renusagar"),
a 1994 case under the Arbitration Act, 1940, provided
5 P. Rathinam v. Union Ofindia, [1994] 3 SCC 394; Union ofindia v. Shri Gopai Chandra
Mishra, AIR 1978 SC 694; Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeo Das {1959) Supp [2} SCR 206
5 Richardson v. Meliish, [1824-34] All ER Rep 258, per Burrough I.
7 lean-Paul Beraudo, Egregious Error of Law as Grounds for Setting Aside an Arbitral
Award, 23{4] ]. 0F INTL.ARB. 351 [2006]; Patricia Nacimiento,Articie V(1)(a) in Herbert
Kronke, Patricia Nacimiento, et ai. (eds), RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
ARBITRAL AWARDS: A GLOBAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEWYORK CONVENTION 205--2 30 [Kluwer
Law International 2010].