Judgments - Arbitration Act,1940
P. SESHAREDDY (D) REP. BY HIS LR CUM IRREVOCABLE GPA HOLDER AND ASSIGNEE KOTAMREDDY KODANDARAMI REDDY VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.P. RAJYA TILHAN UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT PACHAMA DISTRICT SEHORE VERSUS M/S. MODI TRANSPORT SERVICE
ATLANTA LIMITED THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA
PSA SICAL TERMINALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF V.O. CHIDAMBRANAR PORT TRUST TUTICORIN AND OTHERS
M/S. NANGIA CONSTRUCTION (I) PVT LTD VERSUS NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD
Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.
BALWANT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. VERSUS DUNGAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.
M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD.
M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
M/S LUNAR ELECTRICALS VERSUS NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD & ORS
SITAC PVT. LTD. VERSUS BANWARI LAL SONS PVT LTD & ORS
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VERSUS M/S S A BUILDERS LTD.
Bhagwan Das Goel(Dead) Through His L.Rs. & Ors VERSUS Pyare Kishan Agarwal
SRI K. MARAPPAN (DEAD) THROUGH SOLE LR. BALASUBRAMANIAN VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER T.B.P.H.L.C. CIRCLE ANANTAPUR
LMJ International Ltd :Versus: Sleepwell Industries Co. Ltd
South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus . Col. J.P.S. Yadav, Managing Director
M/S KOHINOOR TRANSPORTERS Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
M/s Raveechee and Co. Versus Union of India
Shri Gouri Ganesh Shri Balaji Constructions “C” Class Contractor Vs. Executive Engineer, PWD
Law Laid Down - The expression “ascertained amount” appearing in Section 2(1)(d) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short “the State Act”) includes the amount of consequential relief. Mere declaration of termination of contract is not the substantial relief and in the guise of mere declaration an aggrieved person cannot be permitted to omit the consequential relief which the party may be entitled to claim in a reference under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It is held that reading of Full Judgment
M/s Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Vs. Northern Coal Field Limited
Law Laid Down - * Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the appointment of Arbitrator without the intervention of the Court whereas appointment with the intervention of the Court is contemplated under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. * The limitation for filing a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is contemplated by the Limitation Act particularly Article 137 of the Schedule-I of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation does not start from the notice but Full Judgment