Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.41 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Bank Of India & Anr vs K.Mohandas & Ors on 27 March, 2009
In similar view, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaishri
Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 1; Bank of
India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313; Nabha Power Ltd. v.
Punjab SPCL, (2018) 11 SCC 508; Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49; State of Maharashtra v.
Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, (2022) 2 SCC 725.
Raghunath Rai Bareja And Another vs Punjab National Bank And Others on 6 December, 2006
In similar view, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaishri
Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 1; Bank of
India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313; Nabha Power Ltd. v.
Punjab SPCL, (2018) 11 SCC 508; Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49; State of Maharashtra v.
Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, (2022) 2 SCC 725.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd on 13 January, 2016
In similar view, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaishri
Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 1; Bank of
India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313; Nabha Power Ltd. v.
Punjab SPCL, (2018) 11 SCC 508; Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49; State of Maharashtra v.
Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, (2022) 2 SCC 725.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal on 7 January, 2022
In similar view, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaishri
Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 8 SCC 1; Bank of
India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313; Nabha Power Ltd. v.
Punjab SPCL, (2018) 11 SCC 508; Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab
National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Orient Treasures (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 49; State of Maharashtra v.
Shri Vile Parle Kelvani Mandal, (2022) 2 SCC 725.
Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr vs Biswanath Banerjee & Anr on 3 April, 1989
As such, the
condition of enhancement of license fee is illegal and
unjustifiable. The Respondent, on the other hand,
contends that the Catering Policy of 2010 provided
for minimum enhancement of license fee by 10% in
the event of renewal of license under Clause 17.5.
The licensees were in the third or second year of
operation at the time of announcement of Catering
Policy of 2017. The renewal, in fact, is grant of a
fresh license and in terms of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Provash Chandra Dalui
& Anr. V. Biswanath. Banerjee & Anr, [1989 AIR
1834, 1989 SCR (2) 401], it was held that new
licensing coming into creation enables the licensor
to provide for such fresh condition as it may deem fit
as essential. There is no vested right to
unconditional extension or renewal of the license to
the licensee. IRCTC is mandated to implement
Government Policies. The license agreement
provides for the applicability of the latest Catering
Policy as well as grant of precedent, which over the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH
KUMAR FAO (OS) (COMM) 203/2022 & connected matters Page 23 of 33
Signing Date:08.06.2023
13:55:17
provisions of the contract, the Claimant arc stopped
from challenging the applicability of Catering Policy
of 2017 as well as imposition of this condition. The
Claimant is claiming renewal on the strength of the
Catering Policy of 2010 as amended and as such,
they cannot challenge the imposition of enhancement
of 10% increase in license fee. As already noticed,
both parties are ad idem that the Master License
Agreement is the paramount document and has to be
read and construed with other integral documents as
each of the party has referred or relies upon these
integral documents in their contention and with
reference to one or the other issue.
Dlf Universal Ltd. & Anr vs Director, T.&C. Planning Haryana & Ors on 19 November, 2010
The
Claimant also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Universal
Ltd. v. Director, Town and Country Planning
Development., Haryana [(2010)14 SCC1 to contend
that contract must be interpreted in a manner so as
to give efficacy to the contract. The Court or the
Tribunal is to determine the ultimate purpose of a
contract primarily by the joint intention of the
parties at the time the contract was so formed.