Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.27 seconds)
M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala on 23 September, 2019 cites

M/S Emkay Global Financial Services ... vs Gindhar Sondhi on 20 August, 2018

17. After referring to Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee’s report and other judgments and observing that the decision in 12 Fiza Developers must be read in the light of the amendment made in Section 34(5) and Section 34(6) of the Act and amendment to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, in Emkay Global Financial Services Limited v. Girdhar Sondhi (2018) 9 SCC 49, it was held as under:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 33 - Cited by 177 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their application under Section 151 CPC, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed writ petitions before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petitions and directed the learned District Judge to “recast the issues” and allow respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file affidavits of their witnesses and further allow cross-examination of the witnesses. After referring to the judgment in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited v. AMCI (India) Private Limited and another (2009) 17 SCC 796, the High Court observed that in order to prove the existence of the grounds under Section 34(2) of the Act, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to file affidavits of their witnesses. In the impugned judgment, the High Court concluded that the reasoning of the District Judge not permitting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file their own affidavits and affidavits of other witnesses to prove their case is erroneous and opposed to settled principles of law. As pointed out earlier, the learned District Judge was directed to “recast the issues” and the court below was directed to permit respondent Nos.1 and 2 to file 4 affidavits of their witnesses and extend corresponding opportunity to the appellant to place their evidence by affidavit. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these appeals. This Court ordered notice vide order dated 06.01.2015 and further ordered that there shall be stay of the proceedings in AS No.1 of 2008.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 151 - D V Kumar - Full Document

Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P.Ltd vs Amci (I) P.Ltd.& Anr on 27 July, 2009

(a) of Section 34 of the ACA provides for the setting aside of arbitral awards by the court in certain circumstances. The party 11 applying for setting aside the arbitral award has to furnish proof to the court. This requirement to furnish proof has led to inconsistent practices in some High Courts, where they have insisted on Section 34 proceedings being conducted in the manner as a regular civil suit. This is despite the Supreme Court ruling in Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade (P) Ltd. v. AMCI (India) (P) Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 that proceedings under Section 34 should not be conducted in the same manner as civil suits, with framing of issues under Rule 1 of Order 14 of the CPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 96 - Full Document
1   2 Next