Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)Lakshmana Pillai Alias Shanmugham ... vs Appalwar Alwar Ayyangar And Anr. on 13 September, 1922
8. It is said that the reference has stood withdrawn and also that the offer of withdrawal has been accepted by the Union of India and therefore there is a compromise and the report of Bakshi Shib Charan Singh has stood confirmed. It is really for the umpire to decide if there is a compromise or a withdrawal which cannot be retracted and whether he should make an award confirming the report of Bakshi Shib Charan Singh. He has the power to allow tke party applying for withdrawal to abandon his application and to proceed With the reference. See -- 'James Lamont & Co. v. Hyland', (1950) 1 All ER 341 (C); -- 'Lakshmana Pillai v. Appalwar Alwar' A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 246 (D). The umpire made no award and when the umpire died the reference was pending before him,
Hari Kunwar vs Lakhmi Ram Jani And Anr. on 17 January, 1916
-- 'Hari Kunwar v. Lakshmi Ram' A.I.R. 1916 All 113 at p, 116 (G).
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Section 5 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 42 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Harakh Ram Jani And Anr. vs Lakshmi Ram Jani And Ors. on 6 July, 1920
-- 'Harakh Ram v. Lakshmi Ram' AIR 1921 All 384 (H). It cannot, therefore, be said that it is unnecessary to appoint an umpire. There has been as yet no award which is final and binding upon the parties.
Gogineni Ankayya vs Official Receiver, Masulipatam And ... on 22 January, 1937
305 (N) -- 'Ankayya v. Official Receiver' , -- 'Cassim Mamooji v. K.B. Dutta' AIR 1916 Cal 51 (2) (P). This power of a receiver to institute proceedings in his own name is an exceptional power necessitated by the exigencies of convenience.
1