Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)

Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2019

13. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (supra) is categorical that, automatic stay of the award, as laid down in previous decisions including those cited before us, on behalf of the appellant, were incorrect. It clarifies that Section 36 even as originally enacted was not meant to do away with Article 36 (2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law. It was really meant to do away with the two bites at the cherry doctrine in the context of awards made in India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 85 - Cited by 50 - R F Nariman - Full Document

National Aluminium Co.Ltd vs M/S.Pressteel & Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. ... on 18 December, 2003

14. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. (supra) specifically held in paragraph-41 thereof that, National Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra), National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd (supra), and Fiza Developers (supra) laid down the law incorrectly. It is also of the view that, amended Section 36 of the Act of 1996 being classificatory in nature merely restated the position that unamended Section 36 did not stand in the way of the law to grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc on 15 March, 2018

6. Relying upon (2004) 1 SCC 540 (National Aluminum Co. Ltd. vs. Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 367 [National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. vs. Lloyds Insulation India Ltd.], (2009) 17 SCC 796 [Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited vs. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. , (2018) 6 SCC 287 [Board of Control For Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited], (2019) 8 SCC 112 [Pam Developments Private Limited vs. State of West Bengal], 2017 SCC Online Delhi 6402 [Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Anuradha Bhatia] and AIR 2017 Cal 268 [Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Manoj Ray & Anr., learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the doctrine of automatic stay was acknowledged and implemented both by the Supreme Court and by various High Courts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 109 - Cited by 131 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next