Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
16. Having set out three points noticed by this Court, this Court
deems it appropriate to elaborate little more on one of the three doctrines
enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Associate Builders case i.e.,
judicial approach and test for the same, namely fidelity of judicial
approach.
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
45. Subsequently, in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, a
Constitution Bench of seven judges of this Court examined reports
of expert committees and commissions analysing the problem of
arrears. The Malimath Committee Report (1989-1990) was also
referred to, wherein it was found that many Tribunals failed the
test of public confidence due to purported lack of competence,
objectivity and judicial approach. This Court thus called for
http://www.judis.nic.in
16/19
O.P.No.52 of 2015
drastic measures to elevate the standards of Tribunals in the
country.
The State Of Bihar vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti ... on 30 July, 2018
13. This Court is unable to accept this submission of learned
counsel for respondent for two reasons. One reason is, there is no
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/19
O.P.No.52 of 2015
material placed before this Court regarding Section 33 or correction of
the award under Section 33. This Court is of the view that grant of time
to place before this Court a corrected award copy by the respondent at
this distant point of time will clearly militate against the time line drawn
up for disposal of OPs under Section 34. To be noted, one year time line
has been drawn vide sub-section (6) of Section 34 and Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bhumi Vikas case [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi
Vikas Bank Samiti reported in (2018) 9 SCC 472], more particularly in
Paragraph 26 has made an observation that every Court dealing with
Section 34 petition shall make every endeavour to dispose of applications
within one year. Though, sub-section (6) was introduced in the statute
books only on and from 23.10.2015, expeditious disposal being one of
the pillars of 'Alternate Dispute Resolution' ('ADR') mechanism, the time
line cannot be given a go by. As already alluded to supra, this OP is
already half a decade old.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.Ltd vs Western Geco International Ltd on 4 September, 2014
In a recent judgment, ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco
International Ltd. [(2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] ,
this Court added three other distinct and fundamental juristic
principles which must be understood as a part and parcel of the
fundamental policy of Indian law. The Court held: (SCC pp. 278-
1