Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Section 43 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Bharat Engineering Corporation on 20 April, 1977
The judgment of Division Bench in Bharat Engineering
Corp. (supra) was not cited before the Full Bench. The Full Bench
held that the purpose of Section 20 of the 1940 Act was to effectuate
the intention of the parties of arbitration of disputes and the parties
could not have agreed to exclude the power of court under Section
Ved Prakash Mittal vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 May, 1984
23. Another Full Bench of this court in Ved Prakash Mithal Vs.
U.O.I. AIR 1984 Delhi 325 was faced with a clause of arbitration of
administrative head of Chief Engineer of CPWD and further provided
that if for any reason that was not possible, the matter is not to be
referred to arbitration at all. The question arose whether in the face
of such agreement, the court was empowered to appoint the
arbitrator.
M/S. P. Manohar Reddy & Bros vs Maharashtra Krishna Valley ... on 18 December, 2008
29. I may also notice the recent judgment of the Apex Court in P
Manohar Reddy Vs. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Dev. Corp
MANU/SC/8480/2008 relied upon by the counsel for the respondent.
In the said judgment, the Apex Court upheld a contractual clause
providing for limitation for the purposes of raising a claim and
further held the said clause to be not invalid.
National Highways Authority Of India vs Pnc Constructions Co. Ltd. on 14 July, 2005
However, the senior counsel for the petitioner/appellant, in this
regard drew attention to a judgment of this court in National
Highways Authority of India Vs. PNC Construction Co Ltd 121
(2005) DLT 511 in which case the application under Section 43 (3)
was entertained during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. & Anr on 21 March, 1997
That is why the courts, as in National
Insurance Co. (supra) had held that parties could agree/provide for
forfeiture of rights. The amendment was brought about to get over
such interpretations of Section 28 as existing earlier.