Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
11. Taking into consideration all the above referred
facts and circumstances and the evident intent and
objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of
dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them
and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in
W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that
the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions
submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration
Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to
invoke the same, without going into the merits of the
claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues
involved in the present case and without even
wp_24408_2021
28 SN,J
expressing any opinion on the same and further taking
into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of
G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the
observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon
GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth
Builders and Developers and Another and also the
judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC
679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan
and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana
State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and
others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated
17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia
Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011
reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to
the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and
between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying
wp_24408_2021
29 SN,J
Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022
and bring about a suitable amendment to designate
International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC)
Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to
utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their
arbitration relating to all the disputes between the
petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of
Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/
WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period
of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Unitech Limied vs Telangana State Industrial ... on 17 February, 2021
11. Taking into consideration all the above referred
facts and circumstances and the evident intent and
objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of
dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them
and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in
W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that
the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions
submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration
Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to
invoke the same, without going into the merits of the
claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues
involved in the present case and without even
wp_24408_2021
28 SN,J
expressing any opinion on the same and further taking
into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of
G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the
observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon
GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth
Builders and Developers and Another and also the
judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC
679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan
and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana
State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and
others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated
17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia
Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011
reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to
the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and
between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying
wp_24408_2021
29 SN,J
Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022
and bring about a suitable amendment to designate
International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC)
Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to
utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their
arbitration relating to all the disputes between the
petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of
Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/
WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period
of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011
11. Taking into consideration all the above referred
facts and circumstances and the evident intent and
objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of
dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them
and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in
W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that
the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions
submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration
Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to
invoke the same, without going into the merits of the
claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues
involved in the present case and without even
wp_24408_2021
28 SN,J
expressing any opinion on the same and further taking
into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of
G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the
observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon
GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth
Builders and Developers and Another and also the
judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC
679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan
and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana
State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and
others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated
17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia
Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011
reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to
the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and
between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying
wp_24408_2021
29 SN,J
Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022
and bring about a suitable amendment to designate
International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC)
Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to
utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their
arbitration relating to all the disputes between the
petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of
Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/
WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period
of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Enercon (India) Ltd And Ors vs Enercon Gmbh And Anr on 14 February, 2014
11. Taking into consideration all the above referred
facts and circumstances and the evident intent and
objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of
dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them
and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in
W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that
the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions
submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration
Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to
invoke the same, without going into the merits of the
claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues
involved in the present case and without even
wp_24408_2021
28 SN,J
expressing any opinion on the same and further taking
into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of
G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the
observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported
in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon
GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court
reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth
Builders and Developers and Another and also the
judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC
679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan
and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana
State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and
others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated
17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia
Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011
reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the
writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to
the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and
between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying
wp_24408_2021
29 SN,J
Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022
and bring about a suitable amendment to designate
International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC)
Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to
utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their
arbitration relating to all the disputes between the
petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of
Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/
WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period
of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the
order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
In support of his aforesaid submissions Mr.
Chakraborty firstly relied and referred to the decision of
this Court in Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107], wherein this
Court observed that the Rule of exclusion of writ
jurisdiction by availability of an alternative
remedy, was a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion and there could be contingencies in which
the High Court exercised its jurisdiction inspite of
availability of an alternative remedy.
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
Reference was also made to the decision of this
Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1]; National Sample Survey
Organisation and Another vs. Champa Properties
Limited and Another [(2009) 14 SCC 451] and
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others
vs. Super Highway Services and Another [(2010)3 SCC
321], where similar views had been expressed.
National Sample Survey Organization ... vs Champa Properties Ltd. & Anr on 7 July, 2009
Reference was also made to the decision of this
Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1]; National Sample Survey
Organisation and Another vs. Champa Properties
Limited and Another [(2009) 14 SCC 451] and
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others
vs. Super Highway Services and Another [(2010)3 SCC
321], where similar views had been expressed.
M/S.Hindustan Petroleum Corp.Ltd. & ... vs M/S.Super Highway Services & Anr on 19 February, 2010
Reference was also made to the decision of this
Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade
Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1]; National Sample Survey
Organisation and Another vs. Champa Properties
Limited and Another [(2009) 14 SCC 451] and
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others
vs. Super Highway Services and Another [(2010)3 SCC
321], where similar views had been expressed.