Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)

Spicejet Limited vs Kal Airways Private Limited And Ors. on 3 July, 2017

47. Ms. Kapadia has pressed prayer (e), which is for a direction to the respondent to furnish a solvent security for the amount payable Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 255/2020 Page 27 of 31 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:10.12.2020 21:02:03 against Lot A, which is US$ 133,878.31. Mr. Lohia has, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Singh v. Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.4 as well as the recent decision of this Court in Dinesh Gupta v. Anand Gupta5, to contend that furnishing of security, for the amount involved in the arbitration, can only be directed, where the facts indicate that, were such security not directed to be furnished, there is a danger of the arbitral proceedings being frustrated.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Dinesh Gupta And Others vs Anand Gupta And Others on 17 September, 2020

47. Ms. Kapadia has pressed prayer (e), which is for a direction to the respondent to furnish a solvent security for the amount payable Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (I) (COMM.) 255/2020 Page 27 of 31 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:10.12.2020 21:02:03 against Lot A, which is US$ 133,878.31. Mr. Lohia has, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Singh v. Kal Airways Pvt. Ltd.4 as well as the recent decision of this Court in Dinesh Gupta v. Anand Gupta5, to contend that furnishing of security, for the amount involved in the arbitration, can only be directed, where the facts indicate that, were such security not directed to be furnished, there is a danger of the arbitral proceedings being frustrated.

Big Charter Private Limited vs Ezen Aviation Pty. Ltd. & Ors. on 23 October, 2020

25. It is clear from a reading of the proviso to Section 2(2) of the 1996 Arbitration Act, that, in the case of International Commercial Arbitration, Part II of the 1996 Arbitration Act, which includes Section 9, would continue to apply, even if the seat of arbitration is outside India. BGS SGS SOMA JV1, on which Mr. Lohia sought to place reliance, did not involve a situation in which the proviso to Section 2(2) of the 1996 Arbitration Act was applicable. This Court, in its recent judgment in Big Charter Private Limited v. Ezen Aviation Pty.
1   2 Next