Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.25 seconds)The Finance Act, 1996
Section 22 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Juggilal Kamlapat vs General Fibre Dealers Ltd. on 8 July, 1954
"This principle adopted by Calcutta High Court in Juggilal Vs.
General Fiber Dealers Ltd. AIR 1955 Calcutta 354 (DB) held
that if a party fails to attend the arbitration hearing on the due
date and time, the Arbitrator is at liberty to proceed exparte,
34
Com.AS.No.127/2006
though it is advisable,but not compulsory that he should give
that party notice of his intention to proceed exparte, if he is
absent in the next hearing.
M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs M/S. Advance Commercial Co. Ltd. on 10 January, 1995
Once an Arbitrator makes known
his intention to proceed exparte and it is duly noted by the
parties, the act of a party in not putting up an appearance in the
next date fixed, would empower the Arbitrator to proceed
exparte and such an act of the Arbitrator does not amount to
misconduct as held in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Vs.
Advance Commercial Co.Ltd.(Del). Since provisions of CPC is
not strictly applicable in arbitration proceedings, even if one
party is absent and Arbitral Tribunal declared him exparte, if
the case is not finished on that day and the case is only
adjourned without deciding the case, both sides can appear in
the next adjournment date.
Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah,Bhurey Lal ... on 22 March, 1955
The meaning of the expression 'ex
parte' has been considered by the Supreme Court in Sangram
Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah AIR 1955 SC 435 at 431.
St. Joseph Hospital vs Jimmy P. K. on 5 October, 2012
But if no ex parte decision is
taken on that date but case is further adjourned, both sides can
participate in the subsequent date of posting as held by this
Court in St. Joseph's Hospital V. Jimmy, (2001)2 KLT 514."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Jay Engineering Works Ltd vs Industry Facilitation Council And Anr on 14 September, 2006
AND in the ALTERNATIVE, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his rights,
to attack the awards on the above several grounds, if for any reasons the
honourable court reaches the conclusion that the awards cannot be
interfered with and to be sustained, THEN the honourable court be
pleased to STAY the execution of the awards under Section 22 of the Sick
Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act 1 of 1986 in the light of the
decision rendered by the honorable Supreme Court as reported in 2006
AIR SCW 4783 (Jay Engineering Works v/s Industry Facilitation
Council).