Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)Mohd. Amin vs Mohd. Iqbal on 15 April, 2009
In view of the Agreement, the Appellant sought
withdrawal of the suit filed against the Respondent - Suit
No.331/1989 captioned Mohd. Amin v. Mohd. Iqbal - and
the same was dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated
25.02.1991.
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Gulfam (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & ... vs Mohd. Khalil (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs on 8 April, 2013
"1. The Appellants are successors-in-interest of Mohd.
Amin and have filed the present appeal under Section
37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereafter the A&C Act) impugning a judgment dated
05.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) in
OMP(COMM) No.250/2021 captioned Mohd. Amin
(Deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Mohd. Iqbal (Deceased)
through LRs & Ors.
Panchu Gopal Bose vs Board Of Trustees For Port Of Calcutta on 23 April, 1993
In Panchu Gopal Bose v. Board of Trustees for Port of
Calcutta: (1993) 4 SCC 338, the Supreme Court had explained that
invoking the arbitration would be akin to instituting a suit. Thus, the
question whether any claim is barred by limitation would require to be
determined by examining as to what would have been the period of
limitation if there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.