Supreme Today AI
SupremeToday Landscape Ad
AI Thinking

AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview

AI Overview...

  • Justice Manish Pitale has adjudicated multiple applications for stay of operation of awards and judgments across the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court, often in industrial, arbitration, and civil matters. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In numerous cases, Justice Pitale passed conditional or interim stays of operation of impugned judgments/awards, often subject to deposit of amounts, filing of counter-affidavits, or further hearings. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the interim stay never came into operation because the petitioner failed to deposit the required amounts. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the Court ordered a stay of 50% of the amount pending further hearing. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the Court stayed recovery of the amount until further orders. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]     and ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the Court granted a stay of operation of the impugned High Court order until further orders. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "] ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the stay was specifically directed as to the payment of back wages. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]    , the operation of the impugned judgment was stayed subject to the appellant’s interim stay granted on 11/03/2019. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]     (Criminal Revision), the Court considered the effect and operation of the impugned judgment. ["

    VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

    "]
  • In ["2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2325"], Justice Pitale rejected an unconditional stay of an arbitral award, finding no case made out for stay, as the award appeared prima facie to be passed on facts and evidence. 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2325
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 119"] (Securitisation matter), Justice Pitale quashed an impugned order as jurisdictional and granted an interim stay of the sale notice/auction, raising issues of natural justice. 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 119
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 268"], Justice Pitale examined a stay quashed in 1993 and possession taken in 2000, discussing the inapplicability of the 2013 Act to a pre-2013 award. 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 268
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 275"], the judgment of Justice Pitale in DGS Township Pvt Ltd. was cited on the point that an arbitral award is not invalid merely because there was no invocation of the arbitration agreement. 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 275
  • In ["2000 7 Supreme 264"], the Supreme Court noted that, just as execution of a decree can be ordered, implementation of an Award can also be directed, and a State is bound by the Award. 2000 7 Supreme 264
  • In ["2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1223"], the Court allowed an appeal and set aside the High Court judgment, granting a stay of the operation of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1223
  • In ["2007 1 Supreme 504"], the Court discussed compliance with principles of natural justice and the effect of an ad interim stay. 2007 1 Supreme 504
  • In ["2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1005"], the Court held that the Income Tax Act does not contemplate a stay of proceedings during the period when the Settlement Commission is deciding. 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 1005
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1196"], the appeal was allowed and the orders of the Trial Court and High Court were set aside, dismissing the suit for specific performance based on an oral agreement. 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1196
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1193"], the Court initiated suo motu proceedings regarding systemic failures in law enforcement and administrative vigilance, directing authorities to place components of the programme before the Court. 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1193
  • In ["2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1190"], the Court granted an application for stay of the impugned order in a divorce proceeding under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2026 0 Supreme(SC) 1190
  • In ["2004 5 Supreme 457"], the Court discussed the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the breach of principles of natural justice in the order of the Authorized Officer. 2004 5 Supreme 457

Analysis and Conclusion: Justice Manish Pitale consistently exercises discretion to grant conditional, interim, or partial stays of operation of impugned judgments and awards, particularly in industrial, arbitration, and securitisation matters, balancing the principles of natural justice, factual merits, and public interest. ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] ["

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS - Bombay

"] 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2325 and 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 119 and 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 268 and 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 275
Stay of Operation of an Award: Understanding Procedural Applications in High Court Litigation

Understanding the Role of Judicial Stay Applications in Arbitration and Land Acquisition Disputes

In the landscape of civil and commercial litigation, few procedural mechanisms are as critical as the application for the stay of the operation of an award. Whether dealing with an arbitral award or a decision from a Reference Court in land acquisition matters, parties often face an immediate need to pause the execution of an order while they pursue higher legal remedies. This procedural step is not merely a formality; it acts as a necessary safeguard to prevent irreversible loss while the merits of a challenge are debated in higher forums.

Litigants frequently research specific judicial rulings, such as those by Justice Manish Pitale, to understand how courts exercise discretion in granting such stays. It is important to recognize that while specific orders are fact-specific, they operate within established frameworks of judicial procedure and statutory guidelines.

The Mechanism of a Stay Order

A stay of operation effectively freezes the effect of a judgment or award. This prevents the prevailing party from enforcing the award—such as executing a money decree or taking possession of land—until the court has had the opportunity to review the challenge presented by the aggrieved party.

In the context of arbitration, this often invokes Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Courts are frequently asked to exercise inherent powers, sometimes in conjunction with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), such as Order 41 Rule 5, which deals with stays of execution of decrees.

As observed in various legal proceedings, courts may grant a conditional stay. For example, in some instances, a court may grant a stay of execution of a judgment and award for a fixed period—such as 12 weeks—specifically to enable the appellant to approach a higher forum for further relief 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1243. This serves as a vital bridge for litigants needing time to prepare their appellate strategy.

Navigating Land Acquisition and Reference Court Awards

Litigation involving land acquisition frequently involves complex challenges to the Reference Court’s award. These cases often hinge on whether the acquisition was legally sound, whether compensation was adequate, or if the land was utilized for its notified purpose.

When a party files an application for a stay in such matters, the court examines the balance of convenience. In many scenarios involving Justice Manish Pitale, for example, the focus of the court has been on the procedural integrity of the challenges brought before the bench. While individual orders vary, the court consistently evaluates the merits of the writ petition, such as in cases challenging the non-utilization of acquired land or the grant of 99-year leases for township development 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 268.

In these high-stakes scenarios, the court has held that material suppression of waiver bargain bars relief under unclean hands doctrine; aware owners cannot claim 2013 Act benefits after voluntary handover, decades delay, post-development third-party rights 2026 0 Supreme(Bom) 268. This highlights that a stay is not granted automatically; it requires the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case and clean hands.

Principles of Granting Stays

When a court, including the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur, reviews an application for a stay, they generally consider several guiding factors:

  1. Irreparable Injury: Will the execution of the award cause damage that cannot be rectified if the appeal succeeds?
  2. Prima Facie Case: Is there a substantial question of law or fact that warrants a closer look by the appellate court?
  3. Balance of Convenience: Does the hardship faced by the applicant if the stay is not granted outweigh the hardship faced by the respondent if it is granted?

In arbitral matters, courts have emphasized the necessity of balancing these interests. For instance, in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, courts have disposed of stay applications by directing the deposit of significant sums, such as Rs. 1.50 crores, to protect the interest of the decree-holder while allowing the appellant to proceed with their challenge 2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 309. This confirms that the stay of an award is rarely unconditional when monetary claims are involved.

Procedural Nuances and Judicial Discretion

The legal documents associated with the bench of Justice Manish Pitale frequently address Civil Applications for the stay of operation and execution of judgments. These applications are standard components of the appellate process, often appearing in cases involving motor vehicle accidents, labour disputes, and civil property claims.

For example, in motor vehicle accident claims, when an Insurance Company files an appeal against a common judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the court often deals with civil applications for the stay of operation. If the appeal is decided, these applications for stay may be rendered infructuous or disposed of accordingly 2006 0 Supreme(Guj) 56.

Furthermore, in matters involving industrial disputes, such as those related to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the court may direct the payment of last-drawn wages or minimum wages during the pendency of the writ petition. If a stay of the award is granted, it is often done with the caveat that the workman remains entitled to maintenance support during the litigation process 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2204.

Conclusion

Seeking a stay of the operation of an award is a tactical and necessary procedural step for many litigants. Whether it is an arbitral award, a land acquisition compensation order, or a decree in a civil suit, the court’s primary role is to ensure that the final outcome of the litigation remains achievable.

Parties should note that while obtaining a stay is a common objective, it is at the discretion of the court and is typically subject to conditions—such as the deposit of funds or the demonstration of legal merit. Because every case depends on its unique facts and the procedural history of the dispute, litigants are encouraged to consult with qualified legal counsel to tailor their application for a stay to the specific requirements of their case. This information is for general educational purposes and does not constitute specific legal advice.

#LegalProcedure #HighCourt #ArbitrationLaw #StayOrder
Chat Download
Chat Print
Chat R ALL
Landmark
Strategy
Argument
Risk
Chat Voice Bottom Icon
Chat Sent Bottom Icon

Related Judgments

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, LOWER WARDHA CANAL DIVISION AND ANOTHER vs SAU. VANITA SHALIK DAKARE AND OTHERS

High Court of Bombay

>and operation of the impugned judgment and order, subject to the applicants/appellants ... CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. ... :296pt;left:230pt">impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... CIVIL APPLN. (F) ST.

V.I.D.C. THR. EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, WASHIM AND ANOTHER vs DEVENDRA RAMBHAU TATHOD AND OTHERS

High Court of Bombay

to the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. ... CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... font-family:BitstreamCharter,monospace;font-size:13pt">the appellant in the appeal, this Court deems it fit, in the interest of justice

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. vs MANOHAR

Supreme Court Of India

Stay of the operation of the impugned judgment so far as payment of back wages is concerned. ... JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Pitale,Adv. Mr. ... Petitioner(s) VERSUS MANOHAR S/O NAGARAO DUBHARE Respondent(s) (With appln. ... ./2016 (CC No.14533/2015) (Arising out of impugned final #H....

NAGPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED vs ORBIT MOTELS AND INNS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR .

Supreme Court Of India

There shall be stay of operation of the impugned order of the High Court till further order. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. ... JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. ... Manish Pitale, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Shah, Adv. Ms. D.S. Matwankar, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv. ... Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to ....

ASHOK RAMBHAU KATHE vs SAU. MEERA ASHOKRAO KATHE and ANR.

High Court of Bombay

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. ... CRI.APPLN. ... In view of the above, the effect and operation IN CRI.REVN.APPLN ... A perusal of the impugned judgment and <span

CHANDA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL THROUGH ITS SECRETARY vs MORESHWAR SUDAMJI UPARE

Supreme Court Of India

There will be stay of operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, until further orders. ... JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Basant,Sr.Adv. Mr. Manish Pitale,Adv. Ms. D.S. Matwankar,Adv. ... Bombay at Nagpur) CHANDA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR Petitioner(s) VERSUS MORESHWAR SUDAMJI UPARE AND ANR Respondent(s) (with appln ... span> ....

MAHARASHTRA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, YAVATMAL THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, YAVATMAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Bombay

;top:617pt;left:230pt">judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. ... CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... CIVIL APPLN.

MAHARASHTRA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, YAVATMAL THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, YAVATMAL AND OTHERS

High Court of Bombay

;top:617pt;left:230pt">judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. ... CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... CIVIL APPLN. ... CIVIL APPLN.

MOHAMAD NAIM MOHAMAD BAKS vs THE DIVISIONAL CASTE VERIFICATION AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Supreme Court Of India

JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. ... (s) for vacating stay and ) C.A. No. 9160/2015 C.A. No. 9203-9204/2015 (With appln.(s) for clarification of court's order and ) C.A. ... (s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. ... No. 9157/2015 (With (With (With (With appln.(s) for permission to fil....

SHALINI vs KISHOR .

Supreme Court Of India

Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for stay and permission to file counter affidavit and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 15/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. ... Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the respondents. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. ... JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Siddhesh K., Adv. Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Adv. ... Mr. manish Pitale....

State Of West Bengal VS Dilip Kumar Saha - 2021 Supreme(Cal) 309

2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 309

4. The appellant challenged the said award under Section 34 of the said Act before this court in AP no. 89 of 2015 which was formally admitted on February 25, 2015. Subsequently, an application for stay of the award was taken out by the appellant in the said proceeding and an unconditional stay of the operation of the arbitral award was passed on December 18, 2018. The application for stay was again listed before the Single Bench and by an order dated 15th January, 2021, the stay application was disposed of directing the appellant to deposit the sum of Rs. 1.50 crores with ....

Khanna Jewellers VS Kapil Tandon - 2021 Supreme(Del) 1880

2021 0 Supreme(Del) 1880

22274/2019 (by TENANT for vacation of order directing deposit of use and occupation charges), CM APPLN. 52211/2018 (by TENANT for stay of impugned judgment), CM APPLN. 52213/2018 (by TENANT for permission to place on record additional evidence), CM APPLN.

State of Maharashtra VS Savatram Ramprasad Mills, Akola, A Unit for National Textile Corporation (M. N. ) Ltd. - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1243

2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1243

Therefore, stay is granted to the execution of this judgment and award for a period of 12 weeks. However, considering the legal issue involved in this appeal, it is always desirable to give some opportunity to the the appellant herein, to take necessary recourse to the higher forum.

M. T. N. L. VS Ram Rattan - 2012 Supreme(Del) 2204

2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2204

4. The petitioner challenged the award by filing the present petition. Stay of the operation of the award dated 26.09.2005 was granted by this Court.

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS RAJABHAI VARSANGBHAI bharwad - 2006 Supreme(Guj) 56

2006 0 Supreme(Guj) 56

( 20 ) IN view of the order passed in the Appeals, the Civil Applications for stay of the operation and execution of the judgment and award dated 23-9-2005 do not survive and the same are disposed of accordingly.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
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!

App_Store_Badge Google_Play_Store

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon Instagram Icon Twitter Icon

Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

whatsapp-icon