Search Results for "Tribunal award restored"

543 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 543 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Dismissal of Execution Application for Arbitral Award on Limitation Grounds. Execution of Arbitral Award is Governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963, Not Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., had granted a loan of Rs.3,95,000 to respondent No.1 for purchasing a tractor, with respo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Restores Tribunal's Compensation Award in Motor Accident Claim Case - High Court's Reduction of Functional Disability Percentage Without Cross-Appeal by Insurance Company Deemed Unjustified Under Order XLI Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The dispute arose from a motor accident claim where the appellant, injured in a road traffic accident, sought compensation. The appellant, a 32-year-o...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Quashes Lok Adalat Award Against Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim — Consent Given Without Proper Verification. Act Only Policy Does Not Cover Occupant of Vehicle, and Lok Adalat Award Based on Misunderstanding of Advocate's Presence is Set Aside.

The petitioner, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the Lok Adalat award dated 3.3.2013 in Motor Accident Claim Petitio...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Reduces Compensation Due to Lack of Income Proof. Claimants failed to establish deceased's income from business, leading to reassessment of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The case arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 4 October 2002 involving a scooter bearing registration number MH 27/E316 and a truck b...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Condoning Delay in Arbitration Challenge. Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Held Absolute and Not Extendable Beyond 30 Days.

The appellant, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., had provided a loan to the respondent, Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, for purchase of tract...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in LPG Distributorship Termination Dispute. Clause 29 of Distributorship Agreement Allowed Termination Without Assigning Reasons, and Arbitrator's Findings Were Not Perverse or Contrary to Public Policy.

The petitioner, M/s. Prasad Gas Agency, was appointed as a distributor of LPG (Bharat Gas) by the respondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, un...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging DRAT Order Confirming Sale of Company Property in Favour of Auction Purchaser. Workers' Dues and Alleged Irregularities Do Not Justify Annulment of Concluded Auction Sale Under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

The judgment concerns three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Dispute Over 'Change in Law' Clause — High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act. Interpretation of contractual clause by Arbitral Tribunal was plausible and not perverse, hence not liable to be set aside under Section 34.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC Ltd.) against the judgment of the Gauh...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Petition Under Section 14, Setting Aside Arbitrator's Order Dismissing Substitution Application. Arbitrator's Termination of Proceedings on Grounds of Delay Held Perverse, Amounting to Refusal to Perform Functions and Not an Interim Award Under Section 34.

The dispute arose from a partnership firm where the original claimant, father of the petitioners, had initiated arbitration proceedings in 2004. After...