Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.67 seconds)Section 40 in The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
Tarapore & Company vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Cochin & Anr on 6 March, 1984
These observations were made in connection with the issue as to whether the arbitrability of certain claim had become the subject matter of the decision of the arbitrators by reason of the counter statement filed by the respondents before the arbitrators, who, in the very first paragraph claimed that the learned arbitrators should decide first whether the matter in dispute is arbitrable. This Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Tarapore & Co. v. Cochin Shipyard Ltd. (supra) and took the view that the said judgment has opened a new vista that the question of jurisdiction cannot be left for determination of the arbitrators even by consent, is no longer accepted as correct law as long as the question of law and question of jurisdiction are directly in issue before the arbitrators. Mr. Doctor then referred to the facts of the present appeal and pointed out that the issue as to arbitration had not been raised by the appellant.
Shri M.L. Jaggi vs Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & Ors on 2 January, 1995
Jaggis's case arose out of a dispute between a telephone subscriber and the telephone department with regard to the correctness of certain bills issued to the subscriber. Section 78 of the Telegraph Act, 1985 provides :
Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991
In Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & another A.I.R. 1992 Supreme Court 332 the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that :
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
21. Mr. Zaiwala's reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd. v. Union of India, appears to be well placed. That was a case where certain agents, appointed by the Governor General of India for purchasing ghee required for the use of Army personnel, preferred a claim that there was tremendous increase in the price of ghee as a result of the Second World War breaking out. The ensuing dispute was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators made an award that the agents were entitled to reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 11,27,965-11-3. It was urged on behalf of the agents before the Supreme Court that the circumstances existing at that time when the terms of the contract were settled were drastically altered by reason of the IInd World War and what might have been reasonable terms, when the bargain was entered into, had ceased to be so on account of the outbreak of the IInd World War and, in view of the turn of events, which were never in the contemplation of the parties, the original terms of contract could not remain binding upon the agents. The Supreme Court negatived the contention by pointing out that under section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract is not frustrated merely because the circumstances in which the contract was made, are altered. As long as performance had not become impossible or unlawful, the contract had to be in fact performed. The Indian Contract Act does not enable a party to a contract to ignore the express covenants thereof, and to claim payment of consideration for performance of the contract at rates different from the stipulated rates, on some vague plea of equity. The Supreme Court observes in paragraph 21: