Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.50 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ozone Spa Private Limited vs Pure Fitness & Ors on 29 July, 2015
51. As far as competing of business is concerned, it is admitted by Mr.
Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
that the respondents after termination have started selling rice in the
commercial market. This Court in Ozone Spa Private Limited v. Pure Fitness
& Ors. (2015) 222 DLT 372 in para 32, 37 and 50 has held as under:-
Superintendence Company Of India (P) ... vs Sh. Krishan Murgai on 21 March, 1980
52. There is no force in the submission of Mr.Sethi who argued that Section
27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is attracted in the matter and referred to
the decision in the case of Superintendence Company of India Ltd. vs.
Sh.Krishan Murgai, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 246, (para 52) in support of his
submissions and submitted that the respondents cannot be restrained to sell the
rice in the open market once the arrangement has come to an end.
Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991
The Supreme Court further held:
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995
In M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Company
and Others, AIR 1995 SC 2372, it was observed as under:-
Section 27 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Harpal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 August, 2015
ii. Harpal Singh v. Union of India, 200 SCC Online Del 757,
para 8)
OMP(I) No.575/2015 Page 22 of 48
Respondents' arguments