Court : Supreme Court of India
..... depth and in a time bound manner. this agency may also be directed to investigate into other similar cases, if any, of lands de-notified from acquisition by the bangalore development authority and the illegalities / irregularities / procedural lapses, if any, and to take follow up action.16. the prerna education society set up by ..... trial, writ against the same is pending in the high court. it primarily relates to the improper de-notification of the land, which had been under acquisition but possession whereof was not taken. this land was purchased by the family members of the then chief minister for consideration ofrs.40 lacs and was ..... in view the above facts and circumstances the cec is of the considered view that the purchase of the above said land notified for acquisition for public purpose, its de- notification from acquisition, permission granted for conversion from agriculture to non-agricultural (residential) purpose and subsequent sale to m/s south west mining limited prima facie .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... mac product line r-4 hi point services pvt ltd omnipure, sanilec before 1998 independent distributor of excel technologies since prior to severn trents acquisition of excel technologies currently, independent distributor for severn trent denora distributes omnipure and sanilec products in india8. severn trent, u.s., inc. was a ..... officers of the capital controls company inc., colmar, pennsylvania, u.s.a. had acquired all the shares of the capital controls company inc. and this share acquisition permitted them to support their representatives and distributers with continuity. on 14th november, 1995, the joint venture company, capital controls (india) private ltd., respondent ..... authority and following privatization from the uk government in 1989, it proceeded to build a product and services business from the us beginning with the acquisition of the capital controls group. the name of the first respondent was changed to severn trent water purification inc. with effect from 1st april, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR650(Delhi); [2006]132CompCas656(Delhi); 116(2005)DLT524; 2005(79)DRJ173
..... code of civil procedure (see order xxi, rr.31 and 32 mysore civil procedure code). there is no rule of private international law recognized by the courts in india which renders the bangalore court incompetent to grant a decree directing retransfer of the shares merely because the shares have a situs in a dispute between the company and the shareholders outside the jurisdiction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... because of sub-clause (9) of clause 14 of the pda entered into between the parties, which clause, in unmistakable terms reflects the intention of the parties that the bangalore court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between them. in other words, what sri d.l.n. rao submits is that we should adopt rule of 'purposive interpretation' ..... have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under section 9 of the cpc in terms of sections 15 to 20. thereof. the straightforward answer to the question is that bangalore court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. if that is the answer, the same answer is the answer to the question whether the petition filed by the ..... the subject-matter of the arbitration, if the same had arisen in a suit. this question need not detain the court for long. the dispute brought before the bangalore court relates to and arises out of an arbitration agreement entered into between the parties. it needs to be noticed that in the present case, the parties to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3923; [2000]99CompCas383(SC); JT1999(8)SC66; 1999(6)SCALE441; (1999)9SCC334; [1999]Supp3SCR461
..... comply with them. for these reasons i think the question must be answered in the affirmative....scrutton lj said:the conditions imposed by section 11 were conditions, not of the acquisition of the right, but of its enforcement. section 38 says that repeal of an act shall not (c) 'affect any right...acquired...under any enactment so repealed', or (e) affect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)340; AIR2000Delhi377; 82(1999)DLT137
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. The petitioners have entered into a number of agreements with the respondents, for the construction of a five star hotel at Saket, NewOMP No. 91 of 1999. Delhi. It is alleged by the petitioners that during the pendency of the agreement, the respondents have entered into an agreement with ITC, in total contravention of the agreements with the petitioners. It is further alleged that the petitioner's agreements with the respondents are subsisting and without requisite notice of termination, the respondents have entered into agreement with ITC, which is in contravention with the respondents' agreement with the petitioners. Consequently, respondent No. 1 be retrained from terminating the Technical Services Agreement, Hotel Operating Agreement, Advisory Services Agreement, License and Royalty Agreement, Pre-Opening Technical Assistance Agreement & International Sales and Marketing Agreement dated 8th March, 1997. 2. It is also prayed that the respondents be restr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2004Guj274; (2004)2GLR1352
P. B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner of this Civil Revision Application is the original opponent of Execution Petition No. 610 of 2001, pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said petition is preferred by the present respondent, Tata International Ltd., for enforcement of a foreign award. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner herein, who is the original opponent of that application has raised various preliminary objections, which are negatived by the trial Court. The petitioner-original opponent has approached this Court by way of this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. Since, the present petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham, the present petitioner has also filed an application under Section 24 of C.P.C., being M.C.A. No. 1501 of 2002, for transfer of Execution Petition pending in the City Civil Court to the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gandhidham. The present respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [2004]51SCL345(AP)
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. The Superintending Engineer, N.S.R.C. Circle, Peliru Camp, Ongole, Prakasam District, had preferred these Revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against M/s. R.K. Engineering, 142, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, having been aggrieved by the orders dated 8-8-2003 made in Case No. 29/3/0/1009 and Case No. 29/3/0/892 respectively.2. M/s. R.K. Engineering, R.P. Road, Secunderabad, filed claim petitions before the A.P. Industrial Facilitation Council, hereinafter referred to as 'Council' in short, and the Revision petitioner herein as respondent in the said cases referred to supra, raised preliminary objections before the council that the said claims are barred by limitation and further there is no arbitrable dispute referred to the said Council in the absence of any arbitration clause between the parties since copies of the agreements clearly indicate that claims over and above Rs. 50,000 shall be decided by a competent Civil Court having jurisdictio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This Appeal challenges the Order dated 4.5.2011 of the learned Single Judge who has concluded that the Court cannot go into the controversy concerning the existence or validity of the Arbitration Clause invoked by one of the parties; nor can it issue an injunction restraining that party from continuing with the arbitration proceedings initiated by that party before the American Arbitration Association. Succinctly stated, the case of the Appellant is that the Arbitration Clause featured as paragraph 11 of the.Century 21 International Sub Franchise Agreement” is only between the styled Respondent No.1, Realogy Corporation and DGS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. This Agreement is obviously and apparently a standard form contract prepared by the Claimant. It is salutary to bear in mind that the rule of contra proferentem enjoins Courts to lean in favour of the party which is not the originator or drafter of the document if a contradiction is encountered. We have perused the said Agreement date...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. This Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Appellant's Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short) challenging both the Interim Award dated 20.6.1997 as well as the Final Award dated 29.7.1997 passed by The London Rice Brokers' Association (LRBA). These Awards have not been challenged for the first time. In the first instance, M/s Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India), a partnership firm, of which the Appellant before us and her husband, Mr. Prem Chand Garg are partners along with others, filed CS(OS) No.1103/1997; it was prayed that the subject contracts containing an Arbitration Clause are void and not binding on the firm. The Respondents had filed CS(OS) No.541/1998 seeking the enforcement of these Awards which was allowed; and by an Order of even date, the said Suit filed by the Firm was dismissed by Reva Khetrapal, J. Our learned Sister, in her Judgment dated 27.11.2008, had ordered that the Final Aw...
Tag this Judgment!