Advanced Search Results

M/s N.n. Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs. M/s Indo Unique Flame L ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Arbitration

3 C. THE FINDINGS IN N.N. GLOBAL IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION UNDER THE CAPTION ‘VALIDITY OF AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN AN UNSTAMPED AGREEMENT’................................................... 5 D. SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ....................................................................................................... 15 E. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 29 F. … executed: Provided that- (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before

Manohar Lal Vs. Vinesh Anand and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalArbitration

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 141; Arbitration Act, 1940; Arbitration Act, 1996 - Sections 27; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 172 to 188, 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205, 211, 463, 471, 475 and 476; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 195(3), 340 476 and 476-B; Defence of India Act, 1939 - Sections 19; Debt Recovery Act; Income Tax Act; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; Prize Competitions Act, 1955 - Sections 2; Constitution of India - Articles 252 and 286; Commissions of Inquiry Act - Sections 3(1)

Reported in : AIR2001SC1820; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)908; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1226(SC); 2001(2)ARBLR160(SC); (2001)2CompLJ207(SC); 2001CriLJ2044; 2001(2)Crimes202(SC); JT2001(4)SC573; RLW2001(2)SC220; (2001)5SCC407

Procedure. Since then there has however, been sea change of events: the repeal of the earlier statute of Arbitration (Arbitration Act, 1940) and introduction of the new Arbitration Act, 1996 (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) in the … The relevant provisions being Section 340 and 195 sub-section (1) (b) and sub-Section (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions read thus:'340: Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 -(1) When, upon an application made

Krishan Chander Rameshchander and Bros. Vs. Sohan Lal

Court : Delhi

Subject : CriminalArbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 2

Reported in : 23(1983)DLT9

to as the petitioner) brought the present petition, registered as Suit No. 134-A/80, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the disputes between the Said firm and Sohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) … and this application is also rejected. (35) CRL. Original No. 727180. The present application is under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code . for instituting a criminal complaint against the respondents, namely, Kirori Mal, Nand Kishore, Krishan Chander,

Snehadeep Structures Private Limited Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Indus ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ArbitrationSICA

Acts : Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993 - Sections 4, 6(1), 6(2), 7 and 19; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 5, 11, 17, 31(7), 34, 34(2), 36, 37, 37(1), 37(2) and 37(3); Arbitration Act, 1940; Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Sections 19; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5 - Schedule - Article 182 and 182(2); Industrial Tribunals (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985; Defence of India Act, 1939 - Sections 19(1); Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act; Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings (Amendment) Act, 1998; Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 4, 96, 109, 110 and 115; Crimin

Reported in : JT2010(1)SC70; 2010(1)SCALE108; (2010)3SCC34; 2010(2)LC688(SC)

order dated 25th of January, 2006 of the learned Single Judge of the same High Court dismissing an Arbitration Petition being Arbitration Petition No. 499/2003 filed by the respondents.3. The crucial question that arises for our consideration … while dealing with the ambit of the expression 'shall hear' appearing in Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.22. At this stage, we may now deal with the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the

Rapid Metrorail Gurgaon Limited Etc. Vs. Haryana Mass Rapid Transport ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

the parties to the lis, arising out of the audit report, shall be agitated and decided in the arbitration proceedings, a mode provided in the concession contracts. (vi) It is also directed that whatever documents are required … metro project, shareholding / share in valuation of the assets of the concessionaire company, change of shareholding fights, criminal acts and liabilities etc. which are said to have been inflicted on the Company require detailed forensic and

Concrete Pipe and Products of Cal., Inc. Vs. Construction Laborers Pen ...

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

notification by the "plan sponsor" and a demand for payment. § 1399(b). An unresolved dispute is referred to arbitration, where (1) the sponsor's factual determinations are "presumed correct" unless a contesting party "shows by a preponderance of … 273 U. S. 510, 522 (1927). Before one may be deprived of a protected interest, whether in a criminal or civil setting, see Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U. S. 238 , 242, and n. 2 (1980),

Rail India Technical and Economic Services Ltd. and Another Vs. Vidyaw ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1), (2) and (3), 5, 11, 11(4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10) and (12), 16, 16(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6), 34, 37(2), (3) and 41; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 20; Constitution of India - Articles 8(1), 13(3), 16, 16(3), 32 and 226; Arbitration Act, 1940

Reported in : 2001(3)ARBLR410(All); 2001CriLJ274

order dated November 17, 2000 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996.2. M/s. Vidyawati Construction Company, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 11(6) of … wide, and are untrammelled by any external restrictions and can reach any executive order resulting in civil or criminal consequences. However, the Courts have over the years evolved certain self-restraints for exercising these powers. They have done

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Madan Stores Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 8 and 19(4); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 434(1); Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Indian Council of Arbitration Rules - Rules 20 and 21

Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR191(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT543; 2007(99)DRJ420

bank guarantees was also made a party. In the said suit, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') was filed for reference of the disputes … payments were being made directly to the petitioner and that in respect of the bouncing of cheques, a criminal case was filed by IPCL against the said party. It is thus claimed that the respondent was not

Food Corporation of India vs.m/s s.k. International Rice Mills, Gurdas ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 34 of 1. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arises out of award dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the learned sole arbitrator … best known to FCI officers. Now, efforts are being made for getting the case registered against us under criminal laws.20. the the matters of differences and agreement all disputes are to be referred to an arbitrator for

Adair Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

The 2d 3d 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th sections relate to the settlement, by means of arbitration, of controversies concerning wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment arising between a carrier subject to the … THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, or an agent or officer thereof,