Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.03 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Essar House Pvt. Ltd vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. ... on 1 February, 2021
21. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD
Dhanuha and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v Arcellor
Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd1 mahes it clear that there is no
requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38
Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("dkCPC") must be made
out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division
Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and
restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong
way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms
that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5,
are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it mahes under that
Section, not fetters upon the Court's discretion.