Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: k k nigam · Page 1 of about 3 results (0.045 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Aug 28 2000

Union of India and Another Vs. M.S. Sachdeva

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Aug-28-2000

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule 10; Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11 (6); Constitution of India - Article 136

Reported in : 2000(4)AWC3082

Advocate for Appellant : K.K. Nigam, Adv.

Shyamal Kumar Sen, C.J. 1. Weare of the view that the order appointing arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not a judicial function. It is an administrative one. Being designated...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 01 1996

Smt. Swarnalata Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-01-1996

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 200, 204, 244, 245(3) and 340; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109, 193 and 494; West Bengal (Amendment) Act, 1988

Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)80; AIR1996SC2158; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)232; (1997)2CALLT12(SC); 1996CriLJ2885; 1996(2)Crimes133(SC); 1996(2)CTC507; JT1996(5)SC537; 1996(II)OLR(SC)108; 1996(4)SCALE1

Advocate for Appellant : S.N. Mehta,; K.K. Nigam,; P. Misra,;

ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 1971 of 1983, whereby proceedings in a criminal...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 22 2001

Tumlare Software Services Private Limited Vs. Magic Software Services

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-22-2001

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 11(9) and 16; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 592 to 602; Indian Companies Act, 1913 - Sections 277(1)

Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)937; 92(2001)DLT572; 2001(59)DRJ793; 2002(1)RAJ509

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Nayyar, Sr. Adv. and; Mr. Raman Kapoor, Adv

ORDERJ.D. Kapoor, J.1. Petitioner No.1 claims itself a wholly owned subsidiary Company of petitioner No.2 having its Registered Office at New Delhi. Petitioner No.2 is a foreign Company having its registered office at Denmark and is...

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial