Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.43 seconds)Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sudesh Kumari Mahajan vs Emaar Mgf Private Ltd. on 18 January, 2016
% 17.01.2018
In view of the order passed today by this Court in Arbitration Petition
No. 32/2018 titled Sudesh Prabhakar vs. Emaar MGF Constructions Pvt.
Ltd. and the connected petitions including the present one, the present
petition is also dismissed with all pending applications with no order as to
cost.
Antrix Corp.Ltd vs Devas Multimedia P.Ltd on 10 May, 2013
In this regard she placed
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Antrix Corporation
Limited v. Devvas Multimedia Pvt.Ltd. (2014) 11 SCC 560 and the
judgment dated 22.10.2016 of this Court in OMP(T)(COMM) 48/2016,
Steel Authority of India Ltd.v. British Marine PLC. It is further contended
that a common Arbitrator was appointed in all these petitions only because a
common question of law and fact in relation to the demand of VAT by the
respondent arises in all these matters and even otherwise, it would be in the
interest of justice that a common Arbitrator adjudicates these disputes rather
than having different Arbitrators adjudicate the same as this may lead to a
possibility of conflicting awards being passed in the matters.
Trf Ltd. vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. & Anr. on 17 February, 2017
In view of the above, the judgment of this Court in Dream Valley
Farms Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and judgment of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd.
(supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case.
Dream Valley Farms Private Limited & Anr vs Religare Finvest Limited & Ors on 19 October, 2016
In view of the above, the judgment of this Court in Dream Valley
Farms Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and judgment of the Supreme Court in TRF Ltd.
(supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case.