Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.27 seconds)Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Article 11 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs M/S. Annapurna Construction on 5 March, 2008
These judgments were distinguished in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v.
Pressteel & Fabrications (P) Ltd. & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 540, Bharat Coking
Coal Limited v. Annapurna Construction, (2008) 6 SCC 732 and Garhwal Mandal
Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Krishna Travel Agency, (2008) 6 SCC 741. The first of
these judgments was a judgment under the 1996 Act wherein it was held that
when the Supreme Court appoints an Arbitrator but does not retain seisin
over the proceedings, the Supreme Court will not be “court” within the
meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (Jsw Steel ... vs Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd on 29 August, 2006
42. See: JSW Steel Ltd. vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co.Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
521 at para 59. Section 42 is also markedly different from Section 31(4) of
the 1940 Act in that the expression “has been made in a court competent to
entertain it” does not find place in Section 42. This is for the reason
that, under Section 2(1)(e), the competent Court is fixed as the Principal
Civil Court exercising original jurisdiction or a High Court exercising
original civil jurisdiction, and no other court. For all these reasons, we
hold that the decisions under the 1940 Act would not obtain under the 1996
Act, and the Supreme Court cannot be “court” for the purposes of Section