Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.62 seconds)
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs M/S Zillion Infra Projects Pvt Ltd ... on 10 November, 2020
cites
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Numero Uno International Ltd. vs Prasar Bharti on 8 February, 2008
39. For the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the
impugned award is not against the principles laid down in Order 12
Rule 6 CPC. It is based on the ascertained amount, which the
petitioner has admitted as due and sought to the setoff from the
counter claim in the reply / written statement. The counter claims
filed by the petitioner require adjudication on merit. Further, this is
an interim award, which can be adjusted at the time of passing of the
final award. Further, till the defence is adjudicated, there is no threat
to be assets of the Corporate Debtor and the continuation of the
counter claim would not adversely impact the assets of the Corporate
Debtor.
Ssmp Industries Ltd. vs Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. on 18 July, 2019
In the case of SSMP Industries Ltd (supra), the plaintiff
company had gone into insolvency and a Resolution Professional
was appointed. The question arose whether the adjudication of the
counter claim would be liable to be stayed in view of Section 14 of
the Code. It was held as under:
Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
S.M. Asif vs Virendra Kumar Bajaj on 12 August, 2015
In the
OMP Comm No.72/20 BHEL Vs. ZIPL Page No.15 of 30
case of S. M. Asif Vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj, AIR 2015 SC 3678, it
was held that the words in Order XII Rule 6 CPC "may" and "make
such order..." show that the power under Order XII Rule 6 CPC is
discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Judgment
on admission is not a matter of right and rather is a matter of
discretion of the Court. Where the defendants have raised objections
which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to
exercise the discretion under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The said rule is
an enabling provision which confers discretion on the Court in
delivering a quick judgment on admission and to the extent of the
claim admitted by one of the parties of his opponent's claim.
Cofex Exports Ltd. vs Canara Bank on 29 May, 1997
33. The Court also dealt with the distinction between adjustment,
setoff and counter claim and referred the case of Cofex Exports Ltd
(supra) and Union of India Vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. 2004
OMP Comm No.72/20 BHEL Vs. ZIPL Page No.24 of 30
(3) SCC 50 and held that the distinction between an adjustment and
a setoff / counter claim has no bearing upon the interim award
passed by the Arbitrator on the admitted position.
Satwant Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 26 March, 1999
The petitioner raised the objection. The
Arbitrator after taking into account the rival pleadings, arrived at a
conclusion that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner to the
extent of Rs. 56,36,989.50. The Arbitrator also verified the details of
amount set out in the final status bill to the defence statement and passed
the interim award. Reference was made of the case Satwant Singh Sodhi
Vs. State of Punjab, 1999 (3) SCC 487, wherein it was held:
Union Of India vs Karam Chand Thapar & Brs. (Coal Sales) ... on 10 March, 2004
33. The Court also dealt with the distinction between adjustment,
setoff and counter claim and referred the case of Cofex Exports Ltd
(supra) and Union of India Vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. 2004
OMP Comm No.72/20 BHEL Vs. ZIPL Page No.24 of 30
(3) SCC 50 and held that the distinction between an adjustment and
a setoff / counter claim has no bearing upon the interim award
passed by the Arbitrator on the admitted position.