Advanced Search Results

D.D.a Vs. Pandit Construction Co.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

us in the instant appeal. The first issue relates to the applicability of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, post amendment vide Act No.1 of 1997 with effect from January 08, 1997 and the second issue relates

Union of India (Uoi) Through Textile Commissioner Vs. Bhagwati Cottons ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Civil

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28, 128, 129, 130 and 133 to 139; Limitation Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1907 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 37

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR63; IV(2008)BC73; 2008(5)BomCR909; 2008(2)CTLJ180(Bom)

informed the Defendant No. 2 that in the light of the amendment to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which came into force with effect from 8th January 1997, the Bank was not absolved of its obligation

Rhodia Ltd. and ors. Vs. Neon Laboratories Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9, 9A and 20; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Maharashtra Amendment) Act; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 115; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 46; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28

Reported in : AIR2002Bom502; 2003(1)BomCR140; 2003(1)MhLj373

tribunals in India to be ousted. For this purpose, reliance is placed on Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as well as on the decision of the Delhi High Court in : AIR1991Delhi285 in Rajendra Sethia v.

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy and anr. Overruled

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 19, 24, 28, 28(1), 31, 34 and 37; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 70; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908; Evidence Act, 1872

Reported in : 2006(4)ALD368; 2006(4)ALT256; 2006(3)ARBLR552(AP)

be void, the Arbitrator was competent to grant the appropriate relief in terms of Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 and therefore the Award dated 6-6-2001 did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference on any of the … hand, there was no allegation that the Arbitrator failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 24, 28 or 31 of the Act affecting the rights of the parties. The only contention raised was with regard

Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ArbitrationContract

Acts : Companies Act; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 16, 20 and 25; Supreme Court Rules; Constitution of India - Article 139A(2)

Reported in : 2009(4)AWC4091(SC); JT2009(12)SC250; 2010(2)MhLJ145(SC); 2009(II)OLR(SC)845; 2009(12)SCALE343; (2009)9SCC403:2009AIRSCW5751:2009(5)LHSC3221

to the Calcutta High Court.20. There will, however, be no order as to costs. - Section 25 & Contract Act, 1872, Section 28: [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Transfer of petition - Jurisdiction Held, Where two Courts or more have

Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and ...

Court : Kerala

Subject : BankingCommercial

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Limitation Act

Reported in : AIR1980Ker151

6 months from the date of expiry of the guarantee is hit by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.3. Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads:'28. Every agreement, by which any party thereto is restricted

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, United India Building 4th Floo ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : InsuranceContract

Acts : Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28 and 78; Indian Contract (Amendment) Act, 1997; Limitation Act, 1965 - Schedule - Sections 4; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 10; Madras Port Trust Act, 1905 - Sections 110

Reported in : AIR2001Mad489

the decision of the Supreme Court, it is useful to refer the unamended section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which stood as on the relevant date:-'28. Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings void, -Every agreement, by which

H.P. State Forest Company Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Limitation Act - Sections 44; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 6, Rule 17

Reported in : 2009ACJ684; AIR2009SC1407; 2009(1)AWC818(SC); 2009(1)SCALE216; (2009)2SCC252; 2009AIRSCW865; 2009(1)LHSC466; 2009ACJ684

fixed by Clause 6(ii) could not be sustained by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. In this connection, he has pointed out that this matter was concluded against the respondent by the judgment

Bajaj Auto Limited and ors. Vs. Sundeep Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Contract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 9A - Order 7, Rule 11

Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR792; 2006(1)CTLJ383(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj396

such courts is not contrary to public policy and in no way contravenes Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, if on the facts of a given case more than one court has jurisdiction, parties by their

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. D. Pal and Company

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 11(6), 31(7) and 34; Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 28

Reported in : (2008)2CompLJ245(Del)

After considering several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872, the division bench observed as under:Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of Section