Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.37 seconds)Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
61. While KPMG's report simply states that they have assessed the
accounting principles used during the period under consideration, what
appears to have thrown doubts is their reference to the audited financial
statement for the period ending 28th February, 2002 when in fact there was
no such audited balance sheet or financial statement. The view taken by the
majority AT that since the report of the KPMG was not in accordance with
Article 3.4(b), it cannot said to be final, binding and conclusive is not
contrary to the settled legal position as explained in Jones & Ors. v.
Sherwood Computer Services (supra) which has been followed in
Homepace Ltd. v. Sita South East Ltd. (supra) and Veba Oil v. Petrotrade
(supra).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
G.L. Sultania And Another vs The Securities And Exchange Board Of ... on 16 May, 2007
The Indian position is explained in
G.L. Sultania & Anr. v. SEBI (supra) that an expert report would not be
binding not only where it is based on fraud but even where it is premised on
a mistake.
Mariners Buildcon India Ltd. vs K.V. Makkar Contracts on 15 January, 2015
In Mariners Buildcon India Ltd. v. K. V. Makkar Contracts (supra),
the Supreme Court explained:
Section 29 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd vs M/S Jasbir Singh Chadha (Huf) & Anr on 7 May, 2010
53. The well settled legal position is that an admission to be binding on the
party making it has to be clear and categorical In Jeevan Diesels and
Electricals Limited v. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) ) & Anr. (supra), the
Supreme Court summarised the case law as under:
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Reserve Bank Of India vs S.S. Investments And Ors on 14 August, 1992
(iii) It was factually erroneous to contend that there was no consultation
among the members of the AT. From the letter dated 13th February, 2010
written by M1 it was clear that he was only concerned with the Issue No. 11
and was in agreement with the majority Award on other issues. M2 had also
agreed to the draft Award prepared by the PA. It is only six months after
the letter dated 29th August, 2011 of the PA that M1 sent its dissenting
Award on 11th February, 2012. The fact that M1‟s Award was incorporated
in the final Award and thereafter there was endorsement by all the three
members that without prejudice to the dissent given by M1, the majority
made a Nil Award and this was also signed by all the three Arbitrators
showed that "there was complete deliberation and consultation between the
Arbitrators and it is not necessary in law that all the Arbitrators must
agree." Reliance is placed on the decision in Reserve Bank of India v. S.S.
Investments & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 671, State of Rajasthan v. Larsen &
Toubro Ltd. MANU/DE/0302/1996 (in FAO (OS) No. 80 of 1994).