Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
State Of Tripura vs Shri Ashes Deb on 21 December, 2022 cites

Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs Singapore International Arbitration ... on 4 June, 2010

Counsel contends that arbitration proceedings being ADR method for settlement of disputes require early/quick resolution particularly, in cases where a money award CRP No.85 of 2022 CRP No.86 of 2022 -9- is passed. Having referred to the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 2008(2) Arb. LR 76 (Delhi) (DB) [S.N. Malhotra & sons vs. Airports Authority of India and others] and another decision of Delhi High Court reported in 2010(3) Arb. LR 70 (Delhi) [Bhushan Steel Ltd. vs. Singapore International Arbitration Centre and another], counsel submits that Section 5 of the Arbitration Act which is aimed at cabining and confining the judicial intervention in the arbitration process, should be strictly construed. Counsel contends that Section 5 begins with a non obstante clause and clearly restricts judicial intervention insofar as, matters governed by Part I of the Act are concerned. Such intervention is not permissible except where it is so provided in Part I of the Act which implies that no objection except under the grounds set out under Section 34 in Part I of the Act can be entertained by court. It is argued by the learned counsel of the respondent that the mandate of Section 5 of the Act should be kept in mind while dealing with an application under Section 36 of the Act which is also in Part I of the Arbitration Act. It has been argued by Mr. Deb, learned counsel that no objection was raised by the State against the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act within the time prescribed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 34. Thereafter, the respondent award holder filed the petition under Section 36 seeking enforcement of the award. At this stage, objection raised under Section 47, CPC against execution of the award is untenable and the learned CRP No.85 of 2022 CRP No.86 of 2022 -10- commercial court had rightly rejected such objections. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court for rejecting the present revision petitions. [12] Considered the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties. Perused the entire record.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 15 - M Singh - Full Document

Pam Developments Private Ltd vs The State Of West Bengal on 12 July, 2019

In the case of Pam Developments Private Limited vs State of West Bengal, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court has held that the reference to CPC in Section 36 of the Arbitration Act is only to guide the Court as to what conditions can be imposed by the Court, and the same have to be consistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court further had ruled that the Arbitration Act is a self contained Act, and the provisions of CPC will apply only insofar as the same are not inconsistent with the spirit and the provision of Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Act, therefore, being a self contained code comprehensively deals with all aspects of arbitration and it does not envisage the application of whole gamut of CPC. The CPC can only guide the Court in dealing with the applications under the Arbitration Act. Having regard to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act we cannot go into the merit of the claim and should only deal with the enforcement of the award treating the award as final......"
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 101 - V Saran - Full Document
1