Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.35 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd vs Hindustan Coper Ltd on 5 April, 2005
36. Though the decision of Appeal is reached above, the Appellant appearing in person has cited several cases to which we will make reference very briefly. Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. reported at (2005) 6 SCC 462, is already considered and followed by us above.
Lagandeo Singh vs Satyadeo Singh And Ors. on 5 May, 1992
Not only this, in present Appeal filed before us, he has not challenged said order. However, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that he accepted the award or consented to the impugned judgment and impugned judgment is, therefore, based upon his consent. Written arguments placed by him on record and various steps taken by him in litigation show that he only agreed to compromise the issue. The Appellant has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Lagandeo Singh v. Satyadeo Singh reported at , wherein the Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that Appeal against consent degree lies when factum of compromise is being disputed or when its legality is being doubted. In facts before us, perusal of impugned judgment does not show that it is based upon any compromise or consent. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of Shri Bhandarkar that present Appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, question no. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the present Respondent.
Lachhman Dass vs Ram Lal & Anr on 30 March, 1989
It is also clear that in view of judgment in the case of Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal (supra), the objection about non registration can be raised for the first time at appellate stage also. Accordingly, question no. 1 is answered in the negative.
Keval Krishna Balakram Hitkari & ... vs Anil Keval Hitkari & Others on 1 December, 1999
37. The Respondent through Shri Bhandarkar, has again relied upon number of cases. Kewal Krushna Hitkari v. Anil Hitkari reported at , is already considered by us above.
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of India v. G.C. Roy, reported at again considers powers of Arbitrator to grant interest.