Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT1(SC); 1993(2)ARBLR95(SC); JT1993(3)SC394; (1993)105PLR200; 1993(2)SCALE798; (1993)3SCC1; [1993]3SCR640
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short and the only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if an appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act either under Section 39(2) of the Act or under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.2. Facts are not in dispute. Since the State did not appoint any Arbitrator as provided for in Clause 25 of the agreement despite letters by the respondent to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) and the Secretary P.W.D. the respondent approached the High Court and a Learned Single Judge by order dated 6th September, 1991 revoked the authority of the Chief Engineer to act as an arbitrator and directed one Shri O.K. Roy Chowdhury to act as the sole arbitrator as suggested by the respondent. Against this order the State filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the objection of the respondent as not maintainable. It has been held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)613; AIR2000Delhi23; 80(1999)DLT56
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.By this common order I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I.A. 11829/1998, 774/1999 and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391/1998: I.A. 9131/1996 & 1530/1997 in Suit No. 2428/1996; I.A. 1207/1997, 2588/1997 & 3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I.A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I.A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I.A. 9132/1996 & 4746/1998 in Suit No. 2427/1996 & I.A. 7374/1995 in C.O. No. 25/1995. For convenience sake, the plaintiff in Suit No. 2391/1998, M/s. Standipack Private Limited is being described as the plaintiff throughout in the present order and the other parties are described as defendants. Injunction applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The case sought to be made out by the plaintiff in the injunction applications is that the patent in respect of pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC292Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) Nos.108-109 of 2022 In Review Petition (C) Nos.1158-1159 of 2021 In Civil Appeal Nos 5627-5628 of 2021 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Page 1 of 39 PART A JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Factual Background ................................................................................................... 3 B. DMRCs claim and the Tribunals findings ............................................................. 7 C. Decisions of the High Court .................................................................................... 10 D. Judgment of this Court in appeal ........................................................................... 11 E. Issues in the Curative Petition. .............................................................................. 12 F. Submissions .........................
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe - 39 U.S. 353 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 353 353 (1840) Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe * 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 353 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Action of ejectment in the state court of Alabama for a lot of ground in the City of Mobile. The plaintiff claimed the title to the lot under an act of Congress, and the decision of the state court was against the right and title so set up and claimed. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Alabama. It was held that this case was embraced by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state court in such cases. The act of Congress under which title was claimed being a private act and for the benefit of the City of Mobile and certain individuals, it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR615(Delhi)
Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal being FAO (OS) No. 198/2004 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996. In this appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 407/2003 by virtue of which the Appellant's application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. Mr. Kaul contends that in view of Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act, 1996), it is not open to the Appellant to file the present appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. He submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as the two contingencies in which appeal is maintainable as provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT28
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2007 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Single Judge made the Award dated 5th April, 1972 Rule of the Court and directed that a decree sheet be prepared in terms of the Award as objections to the Award had already been withdrawn and no objections to the Award were pending.2. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant stated that he had no dispute with the Award passed by the learned Arbitrators but as the properties awarded to the Appellant, specially land at Sawan Park, Wazirpur, Delhi, had been fraudulently disposed of by the Respondents, the Award was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the mandate of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 had not been followed by learned Single Judge before making the Aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT412(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned Brother Sinha, J. in agreeing with the conclusions to the effect that the appeal in the instant case is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1 wish to state my own reasons therefor, as under:2. The matter has been referred to the Special Bench for considering the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M/s. Merchants of Traders (P) Ltd. v. M/S. Sarmon Pvt. Ltd.. reported in (1997)2 CAL LT 38(HC). By the said Judgment, the Division Bench held that the appeal preferred against an order of a learned single Judge of this High Court is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The learned single Judge by his order under appeal before the said Division Bench had granted conditional leave to defend the suit in terms of Order 37 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench had followed the ratio' of the earlier Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 03.2018 Pronounced on:11. 04.2018 FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017, C.M. APPL.14331, 14335, 15669, 17064/2017 NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. AND ORS. Appellants Through: Sh. C.A. Sundaram, Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Ms. Swati Setia, Sh. Essence Obhan, Ms. Himanie Katoch, Sh. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Pooja Katara, Ms. Charul Yadav, Sh. Abhishek Saket, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Sh. Jatin and Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocates. Versus MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Ms. Prathiba. M. Singh, Sh. C.M. Lall, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Sh. Kapil Midha, Ms. Namrita Kochhar, Ms. Deepshika Malhotra, Sh. Adarsh Ramanujam, Sh. Anil Dutt, Sh. Shantanu Agarwal, Sh. Rishi Agarwala, Ms. Anusuya Nigam, Sh. Lakshay Kaushik and Ms. Ruchika Wadhawan, Advocates. Sh. Sunil Mathews, Advocate, for UOI. Sh. Neel Mason and Ms. Ridhima, Advocates, for Amar Biotech Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wilcox v. Jackson - 38 U.S. 498 (1839) U.S. Supreme Court Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839) Wilcox v. Jackson 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Ejectment for a tract of land in Cook County, Illinois, being a fractional section embracing the military post called Fort Dearborn at the time of the institution of the suit, in the possession of the defendant as the commanding officer of the United States. The post was established in 1804, and was occupied by the troops of the United States until August 16, 1812, when the troops were massacred and the fort taken by the enemy. It was reoccupied by the United States in 1816, and continued to be so held until May, 1823, during which time some factory houses, for the use of the Indian Department, were erected on it. It was evacuated by order of the War Department in 1823, and was, by order of the department, again occupied by troops in 1828 as one of the military posts of ...
Tag this Judgment!