Judgments - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
JAKSON POWER PVT LTD. VERSUS VIKRAM SOLAR PVT. LTD.
JINDAL INDIA LIMITED VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
MS PVR LIMITED VERSUS MS TIRUPATI BUILDINGS AND OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED
VISIONS APROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS PAYAL KAPOOR VERSUS MEGA MALL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION & ANR
ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LTD. Versus ESSAR BULK TERMINAL LTD.
AKASH BUILDERS THRU. A.R. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU SR.DEN -V NORTHERN RAILWAY
AKASH BUILDERS THRU. A.R. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU SR.DEN -WORK
AKASH BUILDERS THRU. A.R. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU SR.DEN -WORKS NORTHERN RAILWAY
AKASH BUILDERS THRU. A.R. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THRU SR.DEN -V NORTHERN RAILWAY
H S OBEROI BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS MAHAMAYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
KCC BUILDCON PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI SHIVRAJ KUNDU VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
TECHNOCRATS ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS GOLDEN TOWER INFRATECH LTD
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Jaipur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited & Ors. Versus M/s Ajay Sales & Suppliers
M/s. Upadhyay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and others. Vs. M/s. Prism Infra Projects and others.
Law laid down - Madhya Pradesh High Court is not Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, appeal under Section 37(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will lie before Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction i.e. before District Judge or Additional District Judge. Full Judgment
VIVAAN SOLAR PVT. LTD. VERSUS NORTHERN CENTRAL RAILWAYS & ANR
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (NZ) VERSUS CHANNEL VAS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Rukmini Devi Vs. M/s Aryan Flavors (Registered Partnership Firm)
M.P. Road Development Corporation Vs. The Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (MORT & H) and another
Law laid down:- The M.P. Road Development Corporation challenged the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on a dispute arising out of a concession agreement executed between the Corporation and the respondent-Department, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-MPRDC under Section 16 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 contending that the dispute falls within the definition of ‘works contract’ over which the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 would have exclusive jurisdiction and therefore, the Full Judgment