Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.35 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 21 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Firm Ashok Traders And Anr. Etc vs Gurumukh Das Saluja And Ors. Etc on 9 January, 2004
15. The argument that the power under Section 9 of the Act is independent of the Specific Relief Act or that the restrictions placed by the Specific Relief Act cannot control the exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act cannot prima facie be accepted. The reliance placed on Firm Ashok Traders & Anr. Vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja & Ors. [(2004) 3 S.C.C. 155] in that behalf does not also help much, since this Court in that case did not answer that question finally but prima facie felt that the objection based on Section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act may not stand in the way of a party to an arbitration agreement moving the court under Section 9 of the Act. The power under Section 9 is conferred on the District Court. No special procedure is prescribed by the Act in that behalf. It is also clarified that the Court entertaining an application under Section 9 of the Act shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose and in relation to any proceedings before it. Prima facie, it appears that the general rules that governed the court while considering the grant of an interim injunction at the threshold are attracted even while dealing with an application under Section 9 of the Act. There is also the principle that when a power is conferred under a special statute and it is conferred on an ordinary court of the land, without laying down any special condition for exercise of that power, the general rules of procedure of that court would apply. The Act does not prima facie purport to keep out the provisions of the Specific Relief Act from consideration. No doubt, a view that exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act is not controlled by the Specific Relief Act has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The power under Section 9 of the Act is not controlled by Order XVIII Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure is a view taken by the High Court of Bombay. But, how far these decisions are correct, requires to be considered in an appropriate case. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the submissions made in this case, we are not inclined to answer that question finally. But, we may indicate that we are prima facie inclined to the view that exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act must be based on well recognized principles governing the grant of interim injunctions and other orders of interim protection or the appointment of a receiver."
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 22 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Manager, Icici Bank Ltd vs Prakash Kaur & Ors on 26 February, 2007
21 This action of the bank was disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur and others [(2007) 2 SCC 711], laying down as under:
Citicorp.Maruti Finance Ltd vs S.Vijayalaxmi on 14 November, 2011
"27. Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by Reserve Bank of India as well as the appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any action is taken for recovery in violation of such guidelines or the principles as laid down by this Court, such an action cannot but be struck down."
State Bank Of India vs Madhya Pradesh Iron & Steel Works Pvt. ... on 20 February, 1997
25 The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bank of India vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (1990(2) BC 321) held that the Bank is secured creditor, in view of hypothecation. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has laid down as under:
Bank Of Bihar vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 April, 1971
In view of the contentions referred earlier, the learned counsel Shri Shard referred to a catena of decisions, which are as follows: AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1210, Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar. In this case, after referring to sections 172 to 190 of the Contract Act in paras 7 and 8, their Lordships held: