SANJAY KUMAR, P.KESHAVA RAO
Everest Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
MW High Tech Projects India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
Sanjay Kumar, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ( for brevity, ‘the Commercial Court’), in C.O.P.No.31 of 2019, a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. They are therefore amenable to final disposal at the stage of admission by way of this common order.
2. The core issue that arises before us presently is whether the Commercial Court was justified in refusing to grant an injunction as prayed for by Everest Industries Limited, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner in C.O.P.No.31 of 2019, restraining MW High Tech Projects India Private Limited, Hyderabad, the first respondent therein, from invoking the unconditional bank guarantee issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, the second respondent therein. In consequence, the issue also arises as to whether the Commercial Court was right in thereafter directing MW High Tech Projects India Private Limited, the first respondent, to furnish third party security, despite refusal of an injunction, and to pay proportionate costs.
3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred
Ansal Engineering Projects Ltd. V/S. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd.
U.P.State Sugar Corporation V/S. Sumac International Ltd.
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. V/S. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. V/S. State Of Bihar
Bses Ltd. (Now Reliance Energy Ltd.) Vs. Fenner India Ltd.
Mahatma Gandhi Sahakra Sakkare Karkhane V/S. National Heavy Engg. Coop. Ltd.
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. V/S. Coal Tar Refining Co.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.