Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)

Lachhman Dass vs Ram Lal & Anr on 30 March, 1989

9. So far as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachhman Dass's case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, the facts were entirely different. In that case, the dispute referred to the Arbitrator was regarding the determination of rights in the immovable property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe that only that award needed registration which creates rights in immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/- for the first time. It is clear from the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 36 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M. Anasuya Devi And Anr vs M. Manik Reddy And Ors on 16 October, 2003

11. The submission of learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 was that this objection should have been taken by the appellant in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Since this objection was not taken there, therefore, the appellant is debarred from taking this plea at this stage. This submission was countered by the learned Counsel for the appellant that such an objection can be taken only in proceedings under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 when the said award is put to execution. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as M. Anasuya and Anr. v. M. Manik Reddy and Ors. 2003(4) Recent Civil Reports 763. There is merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that he was entitled to take this objection in proceedings under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 even if this objection was not taken in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. However, as has been held above, the arbitration award did not require registration and is enforceable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 97 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1