Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs The Department Of Sale Tax/ ... on 29 September, 2015
21. In Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority and Ors. vs. Raghu
Nath Gupta and Ors., reported at AIR 2012 SC 3194, the Supreme
Court held that the phrase "as is where is " is a clear indication that
the person entering into the agreement is well aware about the
condition and the surrounding of the property and if the party
entering into the agreement has any sort of the problem with the
property, then the person is free to reject the same , but if once, the
person has accepted the allotment then the same are estopped from
contending the same. The relevant part of the judgement is
reproduced as under:-
Ai Champday Industries Ltd vs Official Liquidator & Anr on 19 February, 2009
In AI Champdany Industries Limited vs. The Official Liquidator
and Anr., reported at (2009) 4SCC 486, the Supreme Court broadly
explained the phrase "as is where is" and held as under :-
Section 13 in The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In Associate Builders (supra), the Supreme Court while further
explaining the scope of judicial intervention under the appeal in the
Act held as under:-