Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. S and S Power Switchgear Ltd., and ors.

Decided On : Jul-22-2010

Court : Chennai

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 30, the Arbitration Act, Section 30, the Arbitration Act, Section 30, Section 37, Section 73 and 74, the Indian Contract Act, Section 74, the Indian Contract Act, Section 74, the Indian Contract Act, Section 39, Section 39, Section 30, the Arbitration Act, Section 30, Indian Arbitration Act, the Indian Arbitration Act, the Limitation Act, the Limitation Act, Section 74, the Indian Contract Act, the Indian Contract Act, Section 73, the Contract Act, Section 74, Section 73, Section 74, the Indian Contract Act, Section 30, the Arbitration Act, Section 30, Section 30, Section 30, Section 37, Section 30

CARDINAL: 1, 400, 3., 4, 5., 9.8.1994, Rs.36,000/-, 2.5.1994, 18.2.1994, 9.8.1994, 8., 10, 11, 7=%, 11.2, 12, 5, 5, 68, 13, 14, 5, 5, 5, 15, 2.5.1994, 1.8.1994, 16, 19.0, 19.2, 19.3, 19.5, 18, 19, 19.2, 19.4, 20, 21, 23, 23, 24, 19.2, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 25, 9.8.1994, 18.2.1994, 26, 18.2.1994, 19.2, 18.2.1994, 19.2, 19.4, 27, 28, 9.8.1994, 29, 30, 19.2, 19.4, 2.5.1994, 17.5, 32, 5, 68, 3, 4, 34, 11, 11, 13, 36, 37, 5, 10, 30, 38, 39, 40, 30.09.2008

DATE: 1940, 23.2.1989, 20 months, March, 1990, July, 1990, 11.2.1991, 30 days, 10.1.1994, 19.7.1990, four months, 1997, 2006, 2006, a period of, three months, 1997, 27th June, 2008, 1940, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days' period, 2009, 2003, 41, 42, three year, 2003, 68, 2003, 2009, 30 days, 1991, the three years' period, a period of, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days, 1940, 1940, a period of, 30 days, a period of, 30 days, 30 days', 1991, 25, 22, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days, 30 days, July, 1990, 11th April 1991, 16.2.1993, 19.2.1991, 19.3, three year, three years, 31, 13.06.1990, 10.1.1994, 2003, 11.2, 2009, 1940, 2008

ORG: the Original Petition, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, NLC, Intent on 19.7.1988, NLC, Arbitrators, Umpire, Arbitrators, Arbitrators, the Important Commercial Conditions, Arbitrators, The Arbitral Tribunal, Tribunal, NLC, NLC, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Public Enterprises, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Original Petition, Vridhachalam, Original Petition, Court, Court, Court, Sub-Court, Court, Court, Arbitrators, the Original Petition, Court, the Original Petition, the Important Commercial Conditions, Arbitrators, Arbitrators, the Important Commercial Conditions, Arbitrators, the Important Commercial Conditions, Court, Court, Southern Group Industries, Court, Court, the Apex Court, Nos.40, Arbitrators, Arbitrators, the Important Commercial Conditions, Tribunal, Court, Court, Court, Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal, the Important Commercial Conditions, Tribunal, Tribunal, Kwality Manufacturing Corporation V. Central Warehousing Corporation, Court, Court, Court, the Important Commercial Conditions, the Important Commercial Conditions, Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd., Arbitrators, Tribunal, Arbitrators, Court, Court, Purchaser, Purchaser, Arbitrators, Hindustan Construction Corporation Ltd., the Important Commercial Conditions, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Engineer, Clauses 23 and, TNEB, Arbitrators, Court, Engineer, the Apex Court, AIR 1951, SC, A.M. Mair & Co., AIR 1969, SC 488 (Union of India V. Salween Timber, Court, the Apex Court, The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Heyman V. Darwins Ltd., Party, the Apex Court, AIR 1989, SC, Arbitration, Court, the Apex Court, AIR 1989, SC, the Important Commercial Conditions, the Important Commercial Conditions, NLC, Board, the Arbitral Tribunal, Arbitrators, the Arbitral Tribunal, Court, the Important Commercial Conditions, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, the Important Commercial Conditions, Court, Court, Tribunal, Court, Court, Tribunal, Arbitrators, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Apex Court, the Apex Court, Tribunal, the Important Commercial Conditions, Arbitrators, the Lower Court, Tribunal, the Important Commercial Conditions, Arbitrators, the Important Commercial Conditions, Tribunal, Clauses 5, Court, Court, Court, Court, the Apex Court, Kwality Manufacturing Corporation V. Central Warehousing Corporation, the Government Corporation, the High Court, the Original Petition, the Supreme Court, Court, the Apex Court, the High Court, the Apex Court, the Lower Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Indian Bank, High Court, the Registrar General, Tribunal, the Fixed Deposit, Indian Bank, the Registrar General, the Fixed Deposit

PERSON: Vridhachalam, Trichur, Vridhachalam, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, V. Creative Foundations Pvt, Contractor, Contractor, Neyveli, V. Gordhandas Sagarmull, Dunedin, Contractor, Madras

PRODUCT: Arbitrator.2, transaction?3, 02.03.2005, 952, 952, Rs.16.04, Rs.16.04

ORDINAL: first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first, first

NORP: Neyveli, Purchaser, Purchaser, Purchaser, Purchaser, Rs.16.00

GPE: Salem, Udamalpet, Rs.14.436, O.P.No.60, Sections

WORK_OF_ART: 31.8.1994, Subordinate

PERCENT: 10%, 10%, 12%, 1/2%, 10%, 10%

LOC: Purchaser

FAC: Sections 73 and 74

TIME: 33 of the Act, 33 of the Act, 33 of the Act

View Full Judgment


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