Search Results for "patent illegality"

1383 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1383 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Commercial Arbitration Dispute. Court upholds award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, finding no patent illegality or conflict with public policy.

The petitioner, Ramakrishnan Krishnan, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitions Challenging Arbitration Award in Property Dispute — No Grounds for Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Court upholds award based on joint family property partition and limitation, finding no patent illegality or perversity.

The petitioners, who were members of a joint family, challenged an arbitral award passed in a partition dispute. The award had been made by an arbitra...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Share Dispute — No Grounds for Interference Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Court Held That the Arbitral Tribunal's Findings on Non-Delivery of Shares and Limitation Were Not Perverse or Contrary to Law.

The appellant, M/s Satish K. Narang & Co., an investor, filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the ju...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation of Liability Clause in Arbitration Case — Clause 49.5 Bars Damages for Employer Delay. Contractual prohibition on claiming damages for employer-caused delay held valid and enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The dispute arose from a construction contract between M/s. C & C Constructions Ltd. (appellant) and IRCON International Ltd. (respondent) for buildin...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Arbitral Award in Share Dispute — No Grounds for Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. Court upholds award rejecting claim for specific performance of oral agreement to transfer shares, finding no valid contract and no limitation bar.

The petitioner, Vijay Shivram Pathare, filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an arbitral award dated 30 ...