Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.72 seconds)Section 3 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Magma Fincorp Limited vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 13 September, 2017
The decision ofCalcutta High Court is also referred,Magma Fincorp Limited
vs Ashok Kumar &Ors. reported in 2017 SCC Online Cal 13129, the
relevant portions of the decision are quoted below:-
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
In support of his arguments, Mr. Sen
has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of C.C.
Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555, in the
case of SRS Entertainment Limited v. Home Stores (India) Ltd., reported
in 2010 (2) R.A.J. 477 (Del), in the case of Amrik Singh v. MAGMA
Fincorp Ltd., reported in (2011) 2 CAL LT 314 (HC) and in the case
of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, reported in AIR 2014 SC
3057.
M/S Srs Entertainment Limited ... vs M/S Home Stores (India) Ltd on 16 September, 2009
In support of his arguments, Mr. Sen
has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of C.C.
Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555, in the
case of SRS Entertainment Limited v. Home Stores (India) Ltd., reported
in 2010 (2) R.A.J. 477 (Del), in the case of Amrik Singh v. MAGMA
Fincorp Ltd., reported in (2011) 2 CAL LT 314 (HC) and in the case
of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, reported in AIR 2014 SC
3057.
M/S Ajeet Seeds Ltd vs K Gopala Krishnaiah on 16 July, 2014
In support of his arguments, Mr. Sen
has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of C.C.
Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555, in the
case of SRS Entertainment Limited v. Home Stores (India) Ltd., reported
in 2010 (2) R.A.J. 477 (Del), in the case of Amrik Singh v. MAGMA
Fincorp Ltd., reported in (2011) 2 CAL LT 314 (HC) and in the case
of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, reported in AIR 2014 SC
3057.
State Of Rajasthan vs Rajendra Prasad Jain on 22 February, 2008
12. The error in the order impugned is that it fails to give due effect to
the fiction contained in section 3 of the Act. There is not even a word in
the impugned order in support of the finding that the service of the
arbitral award on any of the award-debtors could not be demonstrated
and on the said count also the impugned order is liable to be set aside
since the learned Single Judge ought to have set forth the reasons,
howsoever brief, in the order. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance [See
the judgment delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra
Prasad Jain, reported in 2008 (2) Supreme 133]."