Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.57 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
The Finance Act, 2017
Section 34 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd on 9 September, 2009
14. The scope of interference of the Court under Section 34 of the Act is
limited. The Court does not sit in appeal over the adjudication made by the
O.M.P. (COMM) 98/2019 Page 6 of 29
Arbitrator. The findings challenged by the Petitioner are purely within the
domain of adjudication by the Arbitrator. The legal position in this behalf
has been summarized in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd [JT 2009
(12) SC 135] as follows:-
Section 83 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd on 12 October, 2007
24. The learned counsel for Petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 19 of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (supra). A perusal of the afore-noted judgement makes it
amply clear that the said case is distinguishable on facts and is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, in para 19, the Court in
the following words has held that offeree‟s silence coupled with his conduct,
may constitute an acceptance. The relevant paragraph has been reproduced
herein below:
M/S Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd vs Oil & Natural Gas Company on 28 July, 2010
15. Similar view has been taken later in Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission of India(2010) 11 SCC 296. The
observations in paragraph 36 thereof are instructive in this behalf and read as
under:
Satya Developers Pvt Ltd vs Pearey Lal Bhawan Association on 13 October, 2015
The claim of reimbursement of service tax is from
the stage when the extension of time was granted by the Petitioner. The
Respondent was the service provider and the Petitioner was the recipient.
The Respondent is thus entitled to recover the amount of service tax, even
though the contract between the parties was held to be silent with respect to
the entity that was to ultimately meet this statutory liability. The Division
Bench of this Court in a similar situation in the case of Satya Developers
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors v. Pearey Lal Bhawan Association and Ors 225(2015)
DLT 377 has decided as under: