Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
Paragraph 32 of
Associate Builders case reads as follows:
Kuldeep Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 17 December, 1998
In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 at para 10, it was
held:
The State Of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti ... on 30 July, 2018
23. Before concluding, it is made clear that I have reminded myself
that the contours of Section 34 are so limited that a petitioner can succeed
only if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the petitioner's case fits
in nay snuggly fits into one of the 8 pigeon holes adumbrated under sub-
section (2) of Section 34 or exposition of facets of same made by Hon'ble
Courts. If it fits in, the award can be dislodged and if that not so, the
award should be sustained. This Court makes it clear that it reminded
itself about the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhumi
Vikas Bank case being State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas
Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472.
Section 14 in The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008
To be
noted, this Fiza Developers principle was further reiterated recently by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Nidhi Limited case [M/S. Canara
Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1244].
Owing to these two reasons, I deem it appropriate to set out short facts
shorn of unnecessary particulars and they are as follows: