Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (4.37 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S Govind Rubber Ltd. vs M/S Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia ... on 16 December, 2014
86. Therefore, this Court, taking into consideration the
discussion made hereinabove and law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Rubber
Limited Vs. Louis Drefus Commodities Asia Private
33
Limited (supra), is of the view that what has been
argued on behalf of respondent by taking the ground that
arbitration clause as contained in the work order cannot
be construed to be an agreement since it is not a
concluded one, is not sustainable for the reasons
aforesaid, accordingly the same is rejected.
Section 4 in The Finance Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Smt. Rukmanibai Gupta vs Collector Jabalpur And Ors. on 22 October, 1980
In Rukmanibai
Gupta v. Collector [(1980) 4 SCC 556] , this Court held that:
R.N. Gosain A vs Yashpal Dhir on 23 October, 1992
69. It is settled principle of law that there cannot be
‗approbate and reprobate' meaning thereby the part of
the document cannot be allowed to be accepted and part
thereof cannot be allowed to be refused. Reference in this
regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of
R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir reported in (1992) 4 SCC
683 wherein at paragraph 10 which reads hereunder:
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Krishan Niwas on 14 March, 1997
In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Krishan Niwas,
AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2349 the Hon'ble Apex Court
at paragraph-4 has laid down that once the employee has
accepted the correctness of the order and then acted
upon it, the same cannot be questioned by the concerned
1