AI Overview...
- Mad Case (Tc 2006 1 170 Mad) - Main points and insights:
-
The case involves the appeal against an order dated 05.05.2008 by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, which dismissed objections to an arbitration award dated 01.05.2007. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the contract terms before arriving at a decision, indicating that contractual terms are central to resolving disputes arising from arbitration awards Sudhir Gensets Ltd. VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Delhi.
-
Legal Principles and Judicial Precedents:
-
The case references multiple judgments, including SCC 170 and AIR 2006 SC 1634, highlighting the Supreme Court's stance on contractual obligations, arbitration, and jurisdictional issues. These judgments reinforce the need to interpret contract terms carefully and consider relevant legal precedents in arbitration-related disputes ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND POLICE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY VS CHANDRAKANT BADDI - Karnataka.
-
Procedural Aspects:
-
The case underscores procedural correctness, especially regarding the dismissal of objections to arbitral awards, and the necessity of adhering to contractual and legal provisions during arbitration proceedings Sudhir Gensets Ltd. VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Delhi.
-
Additional Insights:
- The case aligns with principles from other judgments that emphasize the importance of jurisdiction, proper notice, and adherence to statutory procedures in civil and arbitration matters Mangilal VS Income-tax Officer - Madhya Pradesh, T. Kamatchi VS S. Murali @ Kanagasabapathy Village Administrative Officer - Madras.
Analysis and Conclusion: This case exemplifies the judiciary's focus on the sanctity of contractual terms and proper procedural conduct in arbitration disputes. The Supreme Court's insistence on considering contract specifics before ruling on arbitration objections underscores the importance of detailed contractual analysis and adherence to legal principles in resolving arbitration-related disputes. The references to landmark judgments reinforce the need for careful interpretation of agreements and procedural compliance in arbitration proceedings Sudhir Gensets Ltd. VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Delhi, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND POLICE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY VS CHANDRAKANT BADDI - Karnataka.
References: - Sudhir Gensets Ltd. VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Delhi Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Mumbai and Ors. (2006) - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND POLICE COMMISSIONER, HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY VS CHANDRAKANT BADDI - Karnataka SCC 170; AIR 2006 SC 1634 - Mangilal VS Income-tax Officer - Madhya Pradesh CIT cases and related judgments - T. Kamatchi VS S. Murali @ Kanagasabapathy Village Administrative Officer - Madras Civil Procedure and transfer of cases - R. Kannan VS Commissioner, Srivilliputhur Municipality, Virudhunagar - Madras Municipal and administrative law cases
Search Results for "Tc 2006 1 170 Mad"
2011 0 Supreme(Del) 165 • India - Delhi
MOOL CHAND GARG
Hindustan Construction Company Ltd Mumbai and Ors. 2006 Raj 114 (MAD) ... (10) Indian Oil Corporation v. M/S Lloys Steel Industries Ltd. 2008(1) RAJ 170 (Delhi) ... 8. ... ... 1. This appeal arises out of order dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge Delhi dismissing the objections filed by the Appellant to the award dated 01.05.2007. ... Thus the Apex Court held that: ... (1) Terms of the contract are required to be taken into consideration before arriving at the con....
2007 0 Supreme(Kar) 227 • India - Karnataka
N.ANANDA, R.GURURAJAN
SCC 170; AIR 2006 SC 1634 : (2006)4 SCC 78 : 2006(3) Scale 78; 1971(2) Mys ... )1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113. ... L.J. 325 (DB); AIR 1939 Mad. 293; AIR 2001 SC 43 : (2001 ... ... 1. 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 325 (DBl. ... 2. AIR 1939 Mad. 293 ... 3. AIR 2001 SC 43 : (2001}1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC eCri.) 113 ... No.1 of 2006, dated 1-9-2004. ... 2. Respondent - writ petitioner was d....
2009 0 Supreme(MP) 1317 • India - Madhya Pradesh
A.M.SAPRE, S.K.SETH
CIT [1973] 87 ITR 154 (Mad), HO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC), Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. 170 [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC), Abdul Sattar M. Mokshi v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 368 (Karn) and CIT v. ... ... 1. ... Ashok Kumar Bharati and Vijay Kumar God [2006] 282 ITR 496 (All) : [2005] 149 Taxman 247 vehemently argued that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction, According to him, they are issued against wrong person, etc. ... By filing t....
2022 0 Supreme(MP) 480 • India - Madhya Pradesh
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
d¢jy 37113] 2007 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 102] 2013 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 371] 2000 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 170] 2020 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 217] 2010 ¼3½ ,e ... 664, AIR 1960 Mad. 57, AIR 1990 Gau. 32, AIR 2001 ... 1970 JLJ 207, AIR 1931 Bom. 97 and 2006 (2) MPLJ 600 relied on. ... Jagatram, 2000 (2) MPLJ 170; Narmada Prasad v. Bedilal Burman, 2020 (1) MPLJ 217 {relevant para 9 and 11}; Babulal (dead) through L.Rs. Smt. Krishnabai v. ... Radha Sharan and another, 2006 (2) MPLJ 600 on the basis of....
2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 2510 • India - Madras
T.SUDANTHIRAM
Fact of the Case: The 1st respondent filed Insolvency Petition No.1 of 2006 seeking to declare herself as insolvent ... and filed I.A.No.240 of 2006 under Section 4 and 23 of the Provincial Insolvency Act seeking interim protection pending disposal ... Mad 893(1) and Nallagatti Goundan Vs. ... Ramana Goundan reported in AIR 1925 Mad 170. ... The 1st respondent herein has filed Insolvency Petition No.1 of 2006 seeking to declare he....
2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 2454 • India - Madras
R.REGUPATHI
Santhakumar (1991(1) MWN (Cr.) 265 Mad). ... 9. Pending enquiry the accused entered appearance. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both the parties. ... Judgment :- ... (Prayer: Petition filed to set aside the order of dismissal passed on 03.02.2006 in C.M.P.No.5660 of 2005 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.) ... The petitioner is the complainant in the private complaint.
2006 0 Supreme(Mad) 170 • India - Madras
S.R.SINGHARAVELU
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Sec.24(1)(b) - Transfer of case Principal Bench has power to transfer case in exercise of powers ... under Sec.24(1)(b) - Principal Bench at Madras can hear and decide matters arising out of Districts lying within territorial jurisdiction ... This is in view of the following requirements as found in Section 24(1)(b) C.P.C:- ... "(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without....
2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 1844 • India - Madras
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, P.RAJAMANICKAM
Commissioner, Mettur Municipality, Salem District (2006) 5 CTC 236: LNIND 2006 MAD 1770: (2006)4 MLJ 128, D.Kannan v. Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, LNIND 2010 MAD 759 and Ram and Shyam Company v. ... Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality (2005) 1 CTC 81: LNIND 2004 MAD 1600 : (2005) 1 MLJ 394, C.Jayanthi v. ... Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District and Others (2011) 1 CTC 584 : LNIND 2011 #HL_....
2009 0 Supreme(P&H) 2177 • India - Punjab and Haryana
M.M.KUMAR, JASWANT SINGH
Official Liquidator, (2006-1)142 P.L.R. 404 (S.C.):A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 755 and paras 11 to 13 of another judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction Co. India v. Official Liquidator, (2006)134 Company Cases 267 (Mad). ... Deve Sugars, (C.A.Nos.1811 of 2005, 854 of 2006 and 2740 to 2742 of 2007 in C.P. Nos.170 of 1995 and 35 of 1997, decided on 3.3.2009). He has drawn our attention to the legal principle formulated in para 41 of the judgment. ... 19....
2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2442 • India - Madras
R.SUBBIAH, C.SARAVANAN
State of Orissa and Ors vs Md.Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275. xx. Ramdas and Ors vs State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170. xxi. Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197. ... Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Sarjoj Rajanikant, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1513. v. Malini Parthasarathy vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2007 (1) CTC 67. vi. ... Termination of lease by efflux of time – trespasser & lose right:- C.Albert Morris vs K.Chandrasekaran and Ors, (2006) 1 SC....
Filter by Legal Phrase
