Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.68 seconds)Section 36 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
4. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan NoorKhan Pathan v.
State of Maharashtra and others: (2013) 4 SCC 465 and on the
strength of the said decision contended that the learned Single
Judge had erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by respondent
No.1 as he had no legal right against BDA.
Bhaven Construction vs Exe Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada ... on 6 January, 2021
28. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant in the case of Bhaven Constructions
(supra) is also misplaced. In that case [Bhaven Construction]
appointed an arbitrator. The respondent [Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Limited] had challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitral
Tribunal by filing an application under Section 16 of the A&C Act,
Bar Council Of Maharashtra vs M. V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc on 3 October, 1975
22. As observed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court
in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar: (1975) 2 SCC
702:
Asstt. Gen. Manager Central Bank Of ... vs Commissioner Municipal Corporation ... on 9 May, 1995
NC: 2025:KHC:28516-DB
WA No. 257 of 2025
HC-KAR
arrangement with BDA and is not the allottee under the allotment
letters issued by BDA, we are unable to accept that MTL has no
vestige of interest in BDA performing its obligation to convey the
sites in question in favour of the appellant. Undeniably, MTL has
interest in ensuring that the title to subject sites are conveyed by
BDA. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court
in Asst. G.M., Central Bank of India v. Commr., Municipal
Corpn. for the City of Ahmedabad: (1995) 4 SCC 696, whereby
the Court held that a tenant is entitled to impugn increase in
property tax, although the levy was on the landlord. The Court
reasoned that the burden of such increase may be passed by the
landlord to the tenant. And, in the given facts, there was an
agreement between the landlord and the tenant in terms of which
the tenant had the obligation to pay the property tax.