Advanced Search Results

Modi Distillery Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Delhi Excise Act; Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Sections 64A, 64A(1) and 64A(2); Punjab Excise Act, 1914 - Sections 6; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 14, 17, 20, 30 and 33; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 - Sections 52; Delhi Excise Rules; Delhi Excise Regulations; Delhi Country Liquor Bonded Warehouse Rules; Delhi Liquor license Rules, 1976 - Rules 33, 34 and 35

Reported in : 2007(1)ARBLR192(Delhi); 2007(94)DRJ101

As no action was taken, the petitioner was constrained to file the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.During the pendency of the petition which was filed before this Court, the Lt. Governor of Delhi issued an … Is the suit maintainable in view of non-compliance of provisions of Section 52 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991? OPP2. … such licenses were awarded pursuant to exercise of the statutory powers under the Delhi Excise Act and the rules and regulations framed there under. The general and special condition for the supply stipulated that the statutory rules

The Project Director National Highways No. 45 E And 220 National Highw ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

to eliminate any ground of challenge under Section 34. He argued that this was in contrast to the Arbitration Act, 1940 which contained a specific provision to remit an award under Section 15, and further argued that the Arbitration … of India. In para 34, the learned Single Judge referred to para 52 in McDermott’s case (supra) and then concluded that since the observations made … on children, as commonly understood i.e. persons who are physically under the age of 18 years. The golden rule in determining whether the judiciary has crossed the Lakshman Rekha in the guise of interpreting a statute is

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. H.K. Dhruva

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Constitution of India

Reported in : (2002)4GLR3263

Civil Court for an appointment of two persons as joint arbitrators under section 8 and 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Railway resisted the said application and the City Civil Court passed an order dated 31.3.1986 directing the … and the contractor has also filed First Appeal being First Appeal No. 52 of 1996 is filed by Contractor so far as the same is … shall be payable in all cases in which it is payable by virtue of any enactment or other rule of law or usage having the force of law. (2) Notwithstanding as aforesaid, and without prejudice to the

Union of India (Uoi) Representing Northern Railway Vs. Firm J.P. Sharm ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Reported in : AIR1968Raj99

of the Court to set aside the award is restricted to cases set out in S 30 of Arbitration Act. 1940. It is not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as … finding be precise. The learned District Judge further noticed that the arbitrator was not bound by the technical rules of procedure like a court and, therefore, he need not record separate findings on the various points on … made 3 counter claim. By his order dated 21-8-62 (available at page 521 of the paper book), after hearing both the parties, the arbitrator settled

Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Engineering Constructions Corporati ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ArbitrationContract

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 16 and 30 - Rule 52

Reported in : AIR1995SC2423; 1995(2)ARBLR331(SC); 1995(2)CTC299; JT1995(6)SC48; (1995)2MLJ110(SC); 1995(4)SCALE742; (1995)5SCC531; [1995]Supp2SCR672

less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without an … that the buyer rejected the cotton, the arbitrators can only have arrived at that result by totally misinterpreting Rule 52. But they were entitled to give their own interpretation to Rule 52 or any other article, and the

National Electric Supply and Trading Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. Punj ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : ElectricityArbitration

Acts : Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 7, 7(1) and 52; Electricity (Amendment) Act, 1959; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Reported in : AIR1963P& H56

the parties equally. 2. On November 16, 1956, the licensee made an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940), for the filing of the award in Court. The award having been filed, … the Director of Central Water and Power Commission as arbitrator under Section 52 of the Act, but the licensee did not agree to that. On … objections of the licensee but in the end by his order of December 2, 1957, made the award rule of the Court passing a decree in favour of the licensee in the amount awarded to it by

State of Kerala and anr. Vs. E.A. Cheriyan Kunju

Court : Kerala

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 8 and 30

Reported in : AIR1997Ker1

then be the sole arbitrator. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereon. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the … arbitration agreement that the arbitrator must decide the dispute in accordance with the ordinary law including the basic rules as to procedure. Subject to directions from court if any, so far as be practicable, the rules which … above work. In view of the provisions contained in Clauses 51 and 52 of the Local Competitive Bidding Specification (for short 'LCB' specification) forming part

Akash Gupta Vs. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 7 and 10; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 52, 73, 104, 122 and 129 - Order 5, Rules 17, 19, 19A and 30 - Order 6, Rule 5 - Order 7, Rule 17 - Order 13, Rule 9 - Order 16 - Order 21, Rules 7, 11(3), 14, 17, 24, 25, 34, 50(2), 66 and 67 - Order 22 - Order 27, Rule 7 - Order 30, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 33, Rule 9 - Order 43, Rule 1; Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 37 and 39; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(6); Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 - Rules 3, 4 and 19

Reported in : AIR2006Delhi325; 127(2006)DLT188; 2006(88)DRJ31

the case of the East India Hotel Ltd. and Vidyawati Construction Company (Supra) all relate to cases under Arbitration Act, 1940 or Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both these Arbitration Acts are comprehensive enactments relating to Arbitration and also … from custody for the non-payment of subsistence money;(22) Applications falling under Section 52 of the Code;(23) Applications for leave under Order XXI, Rule 50, Sub-rule … the following questions of law to be answered by a larger bench:-1. Whether an appeal would lie under Rule 4 of the Rules against any order made by the Registrar under Rule 3 on an application/matter against

J.C. Budhraja Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30

Reported in : ILR1991Delhi520

D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is a petition filed under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for a short 'the Act') for making the award dated 11th July 1986 made by Mr. S. N. … respondent (SAIL). They have given an agreed and a non-speaking award. Against 52 claims raised by the petitioner totalling Rs. 2,91,60,097.29 the Arbitrators awarded an … award dated 11th July 1986 made by Mr. S. N. Sinha and Mr. G. Varma, two Arbitrators, as Rule of the Court. The suit was registered on the Arbitrators filing the award in the Court. Then, the

Dlf Ltd. (formerly Known As Dlf Universal Ltd.) Vs. Koncar Generators ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

award should be applied. The Court reasoned that this Court’s judgment in Forasol (supra) was passed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and hence, does not apply in the present case. Instead, the High Court referred to the Delhi High … Act, 1940, there is no requirement for a separate decree by a court for making the award a rule of the court.195. Case-law on Relevant Date for Conversion: Now, we will discuss the case-law on the relevant … this Chapter had not been enacted.” 13 a savings clause and Section 5217 provides that Chapter II of Part II shall not apply to awards