Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs M/S. Annapurna Construction on 5 March, 2008
In Bharat Coking Coal Limited (supra), this Court has held that the Court
ordinarily must reserve right of a party to prefer an appeal. A right to appeal is a
valuable right and unless there exists cogent reasons, a litigant should not be
deprived of the same. It was further held that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by
the Court even by consent of the parties.
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Associated Contractors on 2 March, 2015
In Associated Contractors (supra) a
three-Judge Bench of this Court, after taking note of some of the previous
judgments of this Court, has held that the Supreme Court cannot be considered to
be a Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act even if it retains
seisin over the arbitral proceedings.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S. Saith & Skelton (P) Ltd on 28 January, 1972
In this judgment, this Court has doubted the
view taken in State of M.P. vs. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 702 and
Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons (1981) 4 SCC 634 that
where an Arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court itself and the Supreme
Court retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court would be
‘Court’ for the purpose of Section 2(c) of the 1940 Act. It has been observed thus:
Guru Nanak Foundation vs Rattan Singh & Sons on 29 September, 1981
In this judgment, this Court has doubted the
view taken in State of M.P. vs. Saith and Skelton (P) Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 702 and
Guru Nanak Foundation vs. Rattan Singh and Sons (1981) 4 SCC 634 that
where an Arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court itself and the Supreme
Court retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court would be
‘Court’ for the purpose of Section 2(c) of the 1940 Act. It has been observed thus:
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
In Nav Bharat Construction Company (supra), this Court while following a
three-Judge Bench judgment in Mcdermott International INC (supra) has held
that since the Arbitrator was directed to file the award in this Court, an application
to make the award rule of the Court, has to be filed in this Court. It has been held
in paragraph 11 thus: