Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Court: mumbai Page 5 of about 92 results (0.033 seconds)

Jul 23 2012 (HC)

Shashi Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekh ...

Court : Mumbai

..... nothing in the central act to suggest that, if a hindu marriage is performed outside the territory to which ..... the central act extends, it would denude any party to the marriage from presenting petition ..... under section 19 of the central act before the court within the local limits of whose ..... or outside the territories to which the central act extends. 16. according to the respondent, at the time of presentation of the petition, she was domiciled in the territories to which the central act extends and continues to reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the family court, mumbai, since separation from her husband in june, 2008. suffice it to observe that there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2014 (HC)

Oil and Natural Gas corporation Limited Vs. Enterpose GTM Four Les Tra ...

Court : Mumbai

..... due to the gas leak. it is submitted that the learned umpire has rendered a finding of fact which cannot be interfered by this court under section 30 of arbitration act 1940. 89. the claimants had made this claim which was comprising of three items. the respondents have impugned only third item i.e. ..... exercised his discretion and having allowed extension of time for six days on rough and ready basis, this court cannot interfere with such an award under section 30 of the indian arbitration act, 1940. this court is not going into the reasonableness of the reasons given by the learned umpire or is not re-appreciating ..... public policy of india. if award is contrary to the terms of the contract, it would be open to the court under section 34(2) (b) (ii) of the arbitration and conciliation act to interfere with such award. the award which is on the face of it patently in violation of the statutory ..... the view taken by the learned umpire is a possible view based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be gone into by this court under section 30 of the act. this part of the award is accordingly upheld and needs no interference. 110. in my view similarly the claims awarded by the ..... reasonable. an arbitrator was held not entitled to ignore the law or misapply it and he cannot also act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract. paragraph 14 of the said judgment of the supreme court read thus :- ??14. it is also, by now well settled that an arbitrator is not a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2014 (HC)

Ravindra Harshad Parmar Vs. Dimple Ravindra Parmar

Court : Mumbai

..... and evidently took up citizenship in united states. 11. in support of his contention mr. muchhala sought to place reliance upon the provisions of the family court act, 1984 that section (1) declares that it extends to the whole of india except the state of jammu and kashmir and therefore was inapplicable to ..... revive and to fasten upon the propositus immediately he abandons his domicile of choice. these principles are culled out from the various judgments of the supreme court, high courts and also the indian and english private international law. these principles are of great relevance in the matter concerning domicile of choice. thus, keeping these ..... 1992 (1) bom.c.r. 647 and submitted that the nature of the evidence which a party would be required to place before the court when the court is considering a question of granting or refusing interim relief under order 39 would be totally different from the nature of the evidence which it would ..... appellant and the respondent jointly purchased another town home in pennington, new jersey. in december, 2007, the respondent acquired us citizenship. in july, 2008, the appellant and respondent purchased a new house in manapalan, nj, which was the marital home of the parties. on 29th october ..... , 2008 the respondent gave birth to son reyansh. the petition discloses that the respondent came to india along with her son reyansh to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2015 (HC)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vs. Vijai E ...

Court : Mumbai

..... of a particular government. (see state of rajasthan v. basant nahata: (2005) 12 scc 77].) in dda v. r.s. sharma and co. (2008) 13 scc 80, the court summarized the law thus: 21. from the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) an award, which is (i) contrary to substantive provisions of ..... paras 85, 95). when it came to construing the expression "the public policy of india" contained in section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the arbitration act, 1996, this court in ongc v. saw pipes 2003 (5) scc 705, held- 31. therefore, in our view, the phrase "public policy of india" used in ..... the head "fundamental policy of indian law". it has already been seen from the renusagar judgment that violation of the foreign exchange act and disregarding orders of superior courts in india would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamental policy of indian law. to this it could be added that the ..... , one graduate engineer, one junior engineer, one accountant, one storekeeper and supervisor and one mechanic at the site and had also deployed watch and ward. details of the persons employed have been listed in annexure-n to the statement of claim and the documents filed to establish the same would evidence ..... right, exercise of which was being fettered. there is no term in the contract which is contrary to the provisions of the indian contract act. the indian contract act merely provides that a person can withdraw his offer before its acceptance. but withdrawal of an offer, before it is accepted, is a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2013 (HC)

Smt. Panna Sunit Khatau and Others Vs. Dilip Dharamsey Khatau and Othe ...

Court : Mumbai

..... had committed breach of the contract is not liable to pay compensation and it would be against the specific provisions of section 73 and 74 of the indian contract act. the supreme court held that in the said clause, it was specifically mentioned that it was agreed genuine pre estimate of the damages duly agreed by the parties. it was also mentioned ..... determined, the party claiming compensation must prove the loss suffered by him. a reading of these two judgments lead to an inevitable conclusion that according to the supreme court section 74 of the contract act has obliterated the distinction between the stipulations providing liquidated damages and stipulations in the nature of penalty, so far as payment of compensation is concerned. reasonable compensation ..... meeting proposed to be held on 11th january, 1985. 5. the dispute arose between the parties. dmk group filed arbitration suit no. 1196 of 1985 in this court under section 20 of the arbitration act, 1940 for seeking appointment of the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in clause 27 of the said mou. by an order dated 8th july ..... that adjudication of a dispute/entitlement is different than assessing the quantum of liquidated damages. both are important. kailash rani dang v. rakesh bala aneja and anr. manu/sc/8396/2008 : (2009) 1 scc 732). even saw pipes (supra) has recognized the importance of leading evidence to prove damages or reasonable compensation 39. in view of above, the findings given by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2015 (HC)

CMC Limited Vs. Unit Trust of India

Court : Mumbai

..... award shows patent illegality on the face of the award and being contrary to the terms of the contract, contrary to law laid down by the supreme court and this court, the provisions of the limitation act, 1963 and also being contrary to and overlooking the pleadings and the evidence filed by both the parties, the impugned award deserves to be set-aside ..... final award dated 3rd november 2009 in this petition. the respondent raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the arbitration petition in so far as the order dated 7th february 2008 passed by the arbitral tribunal rejecting prayers 'f' and 'g' are concerned. 17. learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the arbitration petition under section 34 of the said ..... tribunal. the said counter claim was resisted by the respondent on various grounds including limitation and arbitrability. 16. by a separate order passed by the arbitral tribunal on 7th february 2008, it is held that the arbitral tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the respondent's counter claims prayed in prayers 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e' and 'h' of the ..... act for impugning the order dated 7th february 2008 passed under section 16 of the said act in respect of rejection of claim 'f' and 'g' is not maintainable. the arbitral tribunal framed eight points for determination. 18. the respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2014 (HC)

M/s. Mascon Multiservices and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Oman Re ...

Court : Mumbai

..... observations in para 10 of the judgment in the case of bharat sanchar nigam ltd. and anr. vs. motorola india pvt. ltd. 2008(3) arb. lr 531 (sc) the court held that quantification of liquidated damages would follow the delay; ??there has to be delay in the first place ? . 61. mr. ..... weeks and thereafter at a higher rate etc. these clauses came up for consideration under section 74 of the indian contract act. in para 10 of the judgment the supreme court held that quantification of the liquidated damages under clause 16.2 was material. it held that: it is necessary as ..... security deposit whether those new jobs were done or not done by the petitioner. this cannot be gone into by this court in a petition under section 34 of the act when the petitioner admittedly sought time to do same work which evidence has been considered. 15. the learned arbitrator has ..... specific date is made. the petitioner's case would not fall under that legislation. 12. the petitioner has relied upon section 31(7)(a) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (the act) which runs thus: 31. form and contents of arbitral award. (1).... (2) ? ........ (3) ? ........ (4) ? ........ (5) ? ........ (6) ? ........ (7)(a) ..... under the impugned award dated 5th march, 2010 which has been challenged in this petition under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (the act) essentially as being vitiated by bias and upon the arbitrator not having considered the evidence led before him and it being against the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporat ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the merits of an arbitral award are to be looked into under certain specified circumstances. 24. in dda v. r.s. sharma and co., (2008) 13 scc 80, the court summarised the law thus: 21. from the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) an award, which is (i) contrary to substantive provisions ..... set aside. the learned judge has maintained the award of liquidated damages in the background itself. remand and power of appellate court under section 37 of the arbitration act 58. we have to keep in mind the scope and object of the arbitration while deciding the appeal arising out of judgment ..... of the respective contract; or (iv) patently illegal; or (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties; is open to interference by the court under section 34(2) of the act. (b) the award could be set aside if it is contrary to: (a) fundamental policy of indian law; or (b) the interest ..... in the recorded fact of number of joints, required to be carried out by landt. 34. the supreme court, reiterated the principle of section 34 of the arbitration act and the scope of court to interfere with the findings given by the arbitrator. in the present case, as recorded above, the expert ..... union of india, [2008] 14 scc 785. 53. recently, in associate builders (supra), the apex court has elaborated those principles in following words: 15. this section in conjunction with section 5 makes it clear that an arbitration award that is governed by part i of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 can be set .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2013 (HC)

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pyarelal Textile Limited a ...

Court : Mumbai

..... the witness (xii) the parties, if they want to examine witness, may file a list of witnesses. if necessary, seek order from the court under section 27 of the arbitration act, to call necessary witness with or without documents. the evidence in chief - through affidavits ?? inspection - cross examination ?? re-examination, if necessary ..... other doctrines; ??mitigation of loss ? , ??burden of proof ? , ??onus of proof ? and ??shift of burden ? just cannot be overlooked by the court or the arbitrator, while determining the reasonable compensation. ? 20 it is relevant to note that the learned arbitrators though objected and admittedly the respondent-claimant did not ..... from third person. it is remarked that ??the subject loss also does not fall in any of the exclusions of the policy. ? on 3 june 2008, respondent no.1 therefore, filed claim of rs.1,41,04,600/and odd, together with interest @ 21% p.a. on principal amount of ..... surveyor ultimately submitted a final survey report rejecting the claim of respondent no.1 of rs.95,81,978/. 6. on 22 april 2008, respondent no.1 invoked the arbitration clause. respondent nos. 2 to 4 were appointed as arbitrators. respondent no.1 filed statement of claim before ..... the arbitrators. on 15 july 2008, the petitioner has filed its written statement. on 25 july 2008, respondent no.1 filed a rejoinder to written statement. respondent no.1 reserved the right to adduce the evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2014 (HC)

Ashok Dattatraya Kulkarni, (Chief Promoter Apna Ghar Co-operative Hous ...

Court : Mumbai

..... agreement, even assuming this to be a contingent contract, has not yet arisen. indeed, that is demonstrably incorrect, for the so-called contingency occurred immediately on the supreme courts order in 2008 on the consent terms or perhaps even earlier in 2006 when the government of maharashtra and mhada consented to the allotment by signing the consent terms, it only remaining ..... of the society. this is a matter now closed to the plaintiffs in view of section 163(3) of the mcs act: section 163: bar of jurisdiction of courts - (1) save as expressly provided in this act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of ?? (a) the registration of a society or its bye-laws, or the amendments ..... 2012, an application that was granted on 22nd august 2012. in the meantime, on 1st june 2012, kulkarni filed an application under section 21a of the maharashtra cooperative societies act, 1960 ( ??mcs act ? ) before the joint divisional registrar, cooperative societies, seeking to de-register the 5th defendant society on the ground of misrepresentation. this application was opposed before the joint ..... . similarly, kulkarnis application for registration was rejected. his application for de-registration of the 5th defendant society also failed. that application was brought under section 21a of the mcs act: section 21a. de-registration of societies (1) if the registrar is satisfied that any society is registered on misrepresentation made by applicants, or where the work of the society .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //