Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.81 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Cholamandalam Dbs Finance Ltd vs Sudheesh Kumar on 10 December, 2009
6.4. It is his submission that even for an attachment order as per Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, "the CPC"), there must be an averment that the respondent is trying to go away from the jurisdiction or there is any misappropriation and in the absence of any such pleading, the applicant is not entitled to refund. It is submitted that the respondent is financially sound and therefore, the question of furnishing security does not arise. He would rely upon the decisions in Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited v. Sudheesh Kumar, [2010] 2 MLJ 448 and HMA Data Systems Private Limited v. SSI Limited, [2009] 5 MLJ 1174 and submit that there is no dispute in existence as on date.
M/S.Hma Data Systems Private Limited vs M/S.Ssi Limited on 12 June, 2009
6.4. It is his submission that even for an attachment order as per Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, "the CPC"), there must be an averment that the respondent is trying to go away from the jurisdiction or there is any misappropriation and in the absence of any such pleading, the applicant is not entitled to refund. It is submitted that the respondent is financially sound and therefore, the question of furnishing security does not arise. He would rely upon the decisions in Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited v. Sudheesh Kumar, [2010] 2 MLJ 448 and HMA Data Systems Private Limited v. SSI Limited, [2009] 5 MLJ 1174 and submit that there is no dispute in existence as on date.
Sundaram Finance Ltd vs Nepc India Ltd on 13 January, 1999
d) The application shall not be closed without hearing the other side after notice is served. Before closing the application, the Court shall also ascertain whether the applicant has taken steps to initiate the arbitral proceedings. If the applicant has not done so, then orders shall be passed putting the applicant on terms as laid down in Sundaram Finance Limited v. NEPC India Ltd., 1999 III LLJ Suppl. 1422 (SC), because section 9 depends on a close nexus with the initiation of arbitral proceedings;
Firm Ashok Traders And Anr. Etc vs Gurumukh Das Saluja And Ors. Etc on 9 January, 2004
One other advantage in hearing the respondent before the closing of application is the clue that we get from Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja, AIR 2004 SC 1433, where the Supreme Court encouraged the parties to suggest a solution. If that is really possible, then even at the initial stage, the entire matter will come to a happy resolution. Therefore, it is not only in the interest of natural justice and fairness, but also as a pragmatic measure that we have laid down these guidelines."
The Companies Act, 1956
1