Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Section 12 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970
17. The above mentioned judgement in Vasudev Dhanjibhai v. Rajabhai
Abdul Rehman [(1970) 1 SCC 670] was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical
Lifting Enterprises (cited supra).
Bhawarlal Bhandari vs Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting ... on 4 December, 1998
In Bhawarlal Bhandari's case the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that even if the decree was passed beyond the period
of limitation, it would be an error of law or at the highest, a wrong decision,
which can be corrected in appellate proceedings and not by the executing court
which was bound by such decree.
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Trf Ltd vs Energo Engineering Projects Ltd on 3 July, 2017
13. The award in question was passed in the arbitration Case in
C.P.No.RJ SF/302/2017 on 13.02.2018. When the execution petition was filed,
the executing court placing reliance upon the provision in Section 12(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
[(2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and others v.
HSCC (India) Limited [AIR 2020 SC 39], suo motu dismissed the Execution
Petition holding that the award is non est in the eye of law due to lack of
inherent jurisdiction on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator.
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019
13. The award in question was passed in the arbitration Case in
C.P.No.RJ SF/302/2017 on 13.02.2018. When the execution petition was filed,
the executing court placing reliance upon the provision in Section 12(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
[(2017) 8 SCC 377 and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and others v.
HSCC (India) Limited [AIR 2020 SC 39], suo motu dismissed the Execution
Petition holding that the award is non est in the eye of law due to lack of
inherent jurisdiction on the ground of ineligibility of the arbitrator.
Jnanendra Mohan Bhaduri vs Rabindra Nath Chakravarty on 19 December, 1932
In Jnanendra Mohan
Bhaduri v. Rabindra Nath Chakravarti [LR 60 IA 71] the
Judicial Committee held that where a decree was passed
upon an award made under the provisions of the Indian
Arbitration Act, 1899, an objection in the course of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10 of 16
C.R.P.No.4959 of 2024
execution proceeding that the decree was made without
jurisdiction, since under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899,
there is no provision for making a decree upon an award,
was competent. That was a case in which the decree was
on the face of the record without jurisdiction.”