SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Cal) 439

BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA
HARBHAJAN SINGH KAUR – Appellant
Versus
UNIMODE FINANCE (P) LTD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASHOK BANERJEE, HARI PRAKASH VYAS, JOY SAHA

B. M. MITRA, J.

( 1 ) -THE present revisional application is directed against order No. 6 dated 11. 10. 96 passed by the 2nd Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in T. S. No. 2831 of 1996. At the motion stage a debate has cropped rip as to the maintainability of the revisional application against the impugned order and the court has given its anxious consideration after giving due hearing to both the parties at length about the maintainability of the revisional application.

( 2 ) THIS court has been apprised that this point has not been thrashed before as it relates to the impugned order arising out of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which came into effect on 25. 1. 96. As such, It has been a common submission of both the parties that the said Act will apply and the provisions of the same will govern the proceedings including interim proceedings. Section 85 of the said Act provides for repealing provisions and it has been specified there that the Arbitration Act of 1940 will stand repealed. The Impugned order has been passed on a parent application without any nomenclature and from the perusal of the prayer of the same it appears that alternative prayers were made in










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top