Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.85 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Samir Narain Bhojwani vs M/S Aurora Properties And Investments on 21 August, 2018
11. Mr. Mody has in the context of mandatory injunctions relied upon
the decisions of the Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs.
Aurora Properties and Investments & Anr., 1 ;Mohd. Mehtab Khan and
Ors., Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors., 2 and Dorab Cawasji
Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., 3.
Mohd Mehtab Khan & Ors vs Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors on 24 January, 2013
11. Mr. Mody has in the context of mandatory injunctions relied upon
the decisions of the Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs.
Aurora Properties and Investments & Anr., 1 ;Mohd. Mehtab Khan and
Ors., Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan & Ors., 2 and Dorab Cawasji
Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors., 3.
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
56. I concur with the above view expressed by the learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court. The learned Arbitrator in passing the
impugned order has exercised discretion in granting the mandatory
injunction order in case of Flat No.702 and as per my
aforementioned finding meets the parameters for granting such order
as laid down by the Supreme Court in Dorabji Cawasji Warden
38/42
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 16:24:35 :::
(supra) and hence, the discretion exercised by the learned Arbitrator
is not required to be interfered with.
M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. And Anr vs M/S. Agarwal Steel on 20 October, 2009
13. Mr. Mody has thereafter referred to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Grasim Industries Vs. Agarwal Steel 4 which is in context of
his submission that there is presumption, that Savla and Goradia by
signing Request-Cum-Affidavit-cum-Declaration restricting their
entitlement for the area of 2625 sq.ft carpet area each on 8 th and 9th
Floor of the re-developed building, have read the document properly
and understood it and only then affixed their signatures thereon. It is
4 Civil Appeal No.5994/2004 decided on 20th October, 2009
14/42
::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 16:24:35 :::
only when there is proof of force or fraud, that the presumption will
not apply. He has submitted that Savla and Goradia cannot be heard
to contend that they had not read the Request-Cum-Affidavit-cum-
Declaration which they have executed.