Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
MECON Limited – Appellant
Versus
City Construction Corp. Durgapur having its registered address at R.K. Pally, Main Gate, Durgapur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under arbitration act invoked. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. timeline breaches and contract obligations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. claim for damages post termination. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. failure in conciliation and dispute resolution. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments on unfair practices. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. respondent's arguments against maintainability. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. conditions of contract and arbitration clause. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 8. judicial interpretation of contractual obligations. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 9. concept of implied acceptance and legal relationships. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 10. definition of arbitration agreement. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 11. legal relationship criteria between parties. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 12. accepting terms by conduct. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 13. validity of arbitration clause in context. (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 14. recourse to arbitration post conciliation. (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , |
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
