Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lu Qin (Hong Kong) Company Ltd. and Others

Decided On : Nov-27-2014

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]

LAW: section 8, section 8, the Arbitration Act, the Notice of Motion, section 37, section 8, the Arbitration Act, section 9, section 34, section 16, section 17, section 8, section 37, section 96, section 10, section 37, section 37, section 39, the Arbitration Act, section 5, section 8, section 37, section 8, section 37, section 8, section 37, section 37, the Arbitration Act, section 5, the Arbitration Act, Section 37, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, section 8, the Arbitration Act, section 37, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, section 8, the Arbitration Act, section 8, section 8, section 8, Section 39, Constitution Benchs, Section 37 of the Act, Section 9, Section 34, Section 8, Section 37 of the Act, Section 8 of the Act, section 8, Section 37(1, Section 9, Section 34, Section 37, Section 8, Section 9, Section 34, Section 37, Section 8, Section 37 of the 1996 Act, Section 37 of the Act, Section 8 of the Act, section 8, section 37, section 37, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, section 37, section 39, section 37, section 37, section 8, section 37, section 39, section 37, section 37, section 39, Section 8, section 8, Section 37, Section 37, section 8, Section 37, section 8, section 37, section 37, section 8, section 8, section 37, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8(1, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, Section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8(1, Section 8, Section 8(1, Section 8, Section 8, Section 8, Section 8, Section 8, Order 39 Rules 1, Section 8 of the 1996 Act, Section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, Section 8 of the 1996 Act, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 8, Section 2, the Bargadars Act, section 8, section 8, the Companies Act, section 8, section 10-F of the Companies Act, the Companies Act, section 10-F. The Division Bench, the Companies Act, the Companies Act, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, Section 8, the Arbitration Act, Section 8, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, the Companies Act, Section 8, the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, Section 8, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, section 8, section 5 of the 1996 Act, the Arbitration Act 1940, section 5, section 8, the Arbitration Act, section 8, the Arbitration Act, the Companies Act, section 8, the Arbitration Act, section 37, section 8, section 8, section 7, Section 7, Section 8, Section 2, Section 8, Section 8, Section 42, Section 2(e, section 8, section 42, section 42, section 8, section 8, section 42, section 8, section 42, Section 42, section 8, section 8, section 8, section 42, Section 2(e, section 8, the Indian Arbitration Act, Section 39, Section 34, Section 34, Section 39(1, Section 34, Section 34, Section 34, Section 34, Section 34, section 50, section 37, section 50, Section 50, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act, Section 6, section 37, Section 45, Section 48, Section 50, section 37, section 45, section 50, Section 39, Section 39, section 39, section 39, section 45, section 50, section 39, Section 37 of the 1996 Act, Section 39, section 37, section 39, section 8, section 37

PERSON: S.J. Vazifdar, Saraf, V.P. Sawant, Punjab, Hind Samachar Limited, Sudarshan Chopra, Ms Shah, Saraf, Rites Limited, Sagar, Vanita M. Khanolkar, Pragna M. Pai, R.K. Sharma, Gurmauj Saran Baluja, Joyce C. Salim, Sat Jit Singh, Babulal Khimji, A.S. Dhupia, Banwari Lal Radhey Mohan, MANU, Keystone Realtors Pvt, Saraf, Saraf, Model Law, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Premlal Mullick, Statutes, Saraf, Controller, Cork, Saraf, Definitions.—, Praveen Enterprises, Saraf, Saraf, aÂ, ¦, Saraf, Saraf, P.V.G. Raju, suo motu, Wovens, Maria Arcangla Sequeira, Praveen Enterprises, Sawant, Rabindra Nath, Gour Mondal, Ordinance, Sudershan Chopra, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Saraf, Paragraphs 1, C.A. Sundaram, Sundaram, J., Paragraphs 3 and, Gourangalal Chatterjee, Bench

DATE: J. 1, 13th March, 2012, 1996, 1940, 28th April, 2010, 1996, 13th March, 2012, 1940, 1996, 1966, 1940, 1962, 19th March, 2009, 2005, 2003, 2003, 1996, 2002, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1886, 2009, LR 64, Section 37(1, 79, 1996, 18.03.2009, LR 64, 2006, 1998, 2001, 1990, 1984, later., 6th November, 2012, 2012, 2012, 1940, 1962, 1999, 1940, 1962, 2011, 1996, Wrenbury, 1923, 1996, section 37, 1996, 1996, 2003, 2000, 2005, 32, 2006, 2006, the end of the day, 2007, 2003, 6SCC 503, 37, 1950, 1950, 1950, 1950, 2003, December 8, 2000, 1956, 1956, December 8, 2000, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1956, 1996, 1996, 1996, 1956, 1956, 76 of 1999, 1996, 1956, 1996, 1996, 1962, 1996, 1996, 1956, 1996, 2000, 1886, 1996, 8, 1996, 42, 1966, 34, 39, 43, 2011, 2, 3, 89, 31068, 2009, 2010, 1996, 1996, the 1996 Act, 1996, 1940, 1940, 1996, 89, 44, 38, 87, 88, 1993, 2002, 45, 37, 52, 1996, 1996, 46

ORG: Court, Court, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Notice of Motion, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Several High Courts, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Court, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Canbank Financial Services Limited, Haryana Papers Chemical, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Mohindra Supply Company, SC, Court, International Technology, S.P.A., Esteem Projects Pvt. Ltd., Notice of Motion No.1238, Summary Suit, Haryana High Court, V. Vijay Kumar Chopra, 4 Company Law Journal, Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court, P. Anand Gajapathi Raju, P.V.G. Raju, AIR 2000 SC, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, JMC Projects, Canbank, Court, the Letters Patent or, Section 104 CPC, Court, Court, Mohindra Supply Co., the Letters Patent or Section 104, CPC, Reliance, the Supreme Court, Mohindra Supply Co., the Supreme Court, P.S. Sathaappan, Court, Letters Patent, Letters Patent, Tandav Films Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Frames Pictures, the Delhi High Court, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Division Bench, RITES Limited, JMC Projects, FAO, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, Groupe Chimique Tunisien SA, Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corpn., SC, SC, P.S. Sathappan, Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 5152, SC, Ashok Nagar Welfare Association and Co., AIR, AIR, Jugal Kishore Paliwal, Mohindra Supply Co., the Division Bench, Canbank, Canbank, Maruti Clean Coal and, Power Limited, Kolahai Infotech Pvt, the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court, Court, Masusmi SA Investment, Ors, Company Law Board No.57 of, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Mohindra Supply Company, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Mohindra Supply Company, the Supreme Court, M/s. NEPC India Ltd., AIR 1999, SC, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Mohindra Supply Company, AIR 1962, SC, High Courts, the Supreme Court, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., Jindal Exports Ltd., the Privy Council, The Administrator - General, ILR, Statute, The Privy Council, House, Court, Court, the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, the High Court, Court of Small Causes;” Section 8, Court, the Supreme Court, Court, Arbitral Tribunal, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, the Supreme Court, P. Anand Gajapathi Raju, Court, the Civil Court, The Civil Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Patel Engineering Ltd., Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Verma Transport Co., the Supreme Court, Ardy International, Inspiration Clothes, U, Supreme, Arbitral Tribunal, The Supreme Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Sri Lakshmi Knits, the Supreme Court, Court, Court, Ors, AIR 2007 Bom, The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, the Calcutta High Court, AIR 1957, S. 2, “We, Court, Court, Haryana High Court, Vijay Kumar Chopra, the Company Law Board, CLB, CLB, CLB, CLB, CLB, CLB, CLB, Sections 397, CLB, CLB, CLB, Company Petition No, CLB, CLB, Court, Mohindra Supply Company, CLB, the Supreme Court, Pannalal Jaiswal, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, P. Anand Gajapathi Raju, P.V.G. Raju, AIR 2000, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Court, The Supreme Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, the Supreme Court, Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd., P.J. Pappu and Ors, AIR 1966, SC, The Supreme Court, The High Court, the Cochin Court, the Cochin Court, Court, Court, the High Court, the Cochin Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Cochin, the Supreme Court, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., Jindal Exports Ltd., SLP, SLP, Court, the Letters Patent of the High Court, the High Court, Letters Patent, the High Court, the High Court, Letters Patent, the High Court, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Sections 49, The Supreme Court, Letters Patent, the High Court, Letters Patent, the High Court, the Supreme Court, Court, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., Jindal Exports Limited's, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Union of India, Mohindra Supply Company, the Supreme Court, State of W.B., Union of India, Aradhana Trading Co., Court, Letters Patent, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., Jindal Exports Limited's, the Supreme Court, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

CARDINAL: 15, 2., 15, 3, about Rs.4.19, 4., 5, 6, 8, 37, 1, 2, 3, 1, 37, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 8, 9, 4, 5, 5., 36, 1, 10, 2, 20, 22, 11, Four, 1, 2, 18, 5, 2006(2, 1, 358, 22, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 16, 2, 479, 565, two, 3, 497, 256, 17, 8, 333, 18, 19, 1895(22, 788, 20, two, one, 21, 1, 8) 359, 22, 15, 23, two, 24, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 25, 1, 26, 1, 1, 1, 27, 1, 1, 28, 1, 29, 30, 6, 2, 4, 31, 8), 7, 275, 34, 36, 33, 1, 4, 34, 3, 686, 275, 35, 149, 36, 8), 359, 11, 4, 5, 9, 6, one, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 28, 1, 38, 117, 660, 397, 398, two, 398, 398, 39, 2005(1, 436, 10, 40, 4, 539, 5, 8(1, 2, 8, 8, 41, 1, 461, 634, 6, 2(c, 34, 39, 2(c, 8, 333, 90, 4648, 2, 3, 89, one, 90, two, 50, 3, 3, 89, 3, 1, 2, “(and, 86, 39, 3, 4, 62, 50, 45, 15

LOC: Single, Single, Single, Single

ORDINAL: first, second, third, first, second, first, first, first, Firstly, Secondly, first, first, Firstly, Secondly, first, Firstly, first, first, first, first, first, second, second, first, first, second

EVENT: the Notice of Motion, the 1996 Act

PRODUCT: LR 365, 256, LR 435, 256, the Full Bench of, Calcutta 274, The Full Bench, Sections 397, 256

GPE: Delhi, Appeal, Delhi, Canbank, P.S., P.S., Delhi, Canbank, Del., Bengal, Hindustan, SBP, Fountain, Smt, Notwithstanding, part”

NORP: Punjab, Letters, HL):-, Punjab, Tulzapurkar

FAC: Delhi 272, Delhi 13, Shyam Sundar Sarma, P.S. Sathappan

View Full Judgment


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //