Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)Phuman Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2011
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that view expressed by learned sole Arbitrator that he is having
no jurisdiction to implead the third party as a party is not correct one.
However, I am of the view that the view taken by learned sole Arbitrator is
correct view by relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Phuman Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) PLJ 177.
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147
that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when
the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it
is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and
that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 11 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Shamsher Singh @ Shera vs State Of Haryana on 26 September, 2002
We
have perused the judgment of this Court in Shamsher
Singh's case (supra) and are in respectful agreement with
the same. In the case before us, neither Phuman Singh-
petitioner nor Harbans Singh- respondent were parties to
the reference which was made by the Society to the
Arbitrator. It was the Arbitrator who impleaded them as
parties and found the petitioner liable for the payment of
the amount. Since the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to
implead the petitioner and Harbans Singh-respondent, the
order impleading them was obviously without
jurisdiction. It necessarily follows that if the petitioner
and Harbans Singh could not be made parties in the
arbitration proceedings no award could be made against
them. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders
cannot be sustained.'
In view of the above, I am of the view that the
undersigned has no power and jurisdiction to implead
another party in the dispute referred by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice for decision.