Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Section 26 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Road Development ... vs Simplex Gayatri Consortium And 2 Others on 19 April, 2018
The aforesaid judgment has been followed by
recent judgments of the High Court of Bombay,
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. v.
Simplex Gayatri Consortium, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom
805 and Calcutta, Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v.
Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects (P)
Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 5606.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank ... on 10 November, 2016
5. Besides this, even otherwise, said issue is squarely
covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Bihar and others vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, (2018)
9 SCC 472, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
provision of sub-section (5) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, as it
stands post amendment cannot be considered as mandatory. The
relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
Section 22 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Division Of High Courts Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd vs Airport Authority Of India on 21 February, 2018
On the other hand, in Global Aviation
Services (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India, 2018
SCC OnLine Bom 233, the Bombay High Court, in
answering Question 4 posed by it, held, following
some of our judgments, that the provision is
directory, largely because no consequence has
been provided for breach of the time-limit specified.
When faced with the argument that the object of
the provision would be rendered otiose if it were to
be construed as directory, the learned Single Judge
::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2019 21:57:15 :::HCHP
5
of the Bombay High Court held as under: (SCC
OnLine Bom para 133).
1