Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
Association Of Corporations & Apex ... vs M/S Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd on 27 January, 2023 cites

M/S Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Co vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2009

ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 6 of 16 argued that the impugned award is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference because of the fact that the petitioner duly participated in the proceedings before Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, raised its defence and led evidence in support of the averments made in the written statement/counter claim. It is averred that Ld. Arbitrator passed a detailed Award after examining all the issues and considering entire oral and documentary evidence produced before him. It is averred that Section 34 of the Act is not in the nature of appeal and merits consideration only if the same is in conflict of Section 34 (2) of the Act. The respondent laid reference to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Company v. Union of India, 2010 (1) SCC 409; Arosan Enterprises Limited v. Union of India, 1999 (9) SCC 497 and Kwality Mftg Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corpn. 2009 (5) SCC 142 in support of their averments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 85 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999

ARBTN No:- 408/17 Association of Corporations & Apex Society of Handlooms v. M/s Reevanjali Furnishers (P). Ltd. Page No. 6 of 16 argued that the impugned award is well reasoned and does not warrant any interference because of the fact that the petitioner duly participated in the proceedings before Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, raised its defence and led evidence in support of the averments made in the written statement/counter claim. It is averred that Ld. Arbitrator passed a detailed Award after examining all the issues and considering entire oral and documentary evidence produced before him. It is averred that Section 34 of the Act is not in the nature of appeal and merits consideration only if the same is in conflict of Section 34 (2) of the Act. The respondent laid reference to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta & Company v. Union of India, 2010 (1) SCC 409; Arosan Enterprises Limited v. Union of India, 1999 (9) SCC 497 and Kwality Mftg Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corpn. 2009 (5) SCC 142 in support of their averments.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - Full Document
1   2 Next