Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Amarjeet Singh & Ors vs Devi Ratan & Ors on 18 November, 2009
24. Further, it is an admitted position that the petitioners did not
assail the said judgment dated 29.07.2016. It is only the respondents,
who had filed the appeal against the final judgment dated 29.07.2016.
State Bank Of India vs Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors on 14 November, 2000
27. The mere fact that the interim order operated only till
14.09.2017 i.e., the date on which the respondent furnished the
security, is of no consequence. The judgment dated 29.07.2016 is very
2
State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, (2001) 1 SCC 73
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 71/2016 Page 10 of 11
&
O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 72/2016
clear and specifically directed that the interim order was to continue
only till the time the respondents deposited the amount. The writing
was clear on the wall that the moment the deposit would be made by
the respondents, the interim order would stand vacated. The direction
is also very much clear to the petitioners and that is why they have
filed these applications as soon as the respondents have complied with
the directions of securing the said amount.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
1