Search Results for "Prothonotary order"

465 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 465 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses MSEDCL's Application to Declare Arbitral Award Satisfied as Vexatious and Dilatory. Unilateral Deposit of Disputed Amount Without Decree-Holder's Consent Does Not Discharge Judgment-Debtor Under Section 31 CPC.

The case involves a Chamber Summons filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), the unsuccessful respondent in an ar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Withdrawal of Deposited Amount in Summary Suit for Recovery of Debt. Plaintiff entitled to withdraw amount deposited by defendant as condition for leave to defend, subject to furnishing security.

The plaintiff, SKF India Ltd., filed a summary suit against the defendant, Banarasi Lal Madan, for recovery of Rs. 1,28,80,060.87 based on invoices, a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Issues Rule in Criminal Contempt Reference Against Accused for Threatening and Scandalizing Metropolitan Magistrate. Persistent Harassment, Intimidation, and Obstructing Judicial Proceedings Prima Facie Constitute Criminal Contempt Under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The matter arose from a criminal contempt reference made by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai, under Section 15(2) of the Cont...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Delivers Oral Judgment in Appeal No. 28 of 2002 Arising from Chamber Summons No. 298 of 2001. The Dispute Involves the Validity of Deposit of Decretal Amount and Recording of Satisfaction of Award Following Prothonotary's Refusal.

In 1988, arbitrators passed an award directing Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) to pay US$1,804.50 and US$59,593 as interest on delayed payments, p...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appellant to Invoke Bank Guarantee in Arbitration Dispute Over Supply Contract. Court Permits Receipt of Amount Subject to Undertaking to Repay with Interest at 12% per Annum if Arbitral Tribunal Orders.

The appellant, Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, placed a purchase order on 8 November 2011 with the responde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief to Franchisee in IPL Termination Dispute. Court restrains BCCI from terminating franchise agreement and issuing fresh tender pending arbitration, holding that prima facie case and balance of convenience favor the franchisee.

The petitioner, Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. (DCHL), was the successful bidder for the Hyderabad franchise of the Indian Premier League (IPL) and en...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Terminates Arbitral Tribunal Mandate for Unreasonable Delay in Filing Statement of Claim. Condonation of delay set aside as claimant failed to show sufficient cause for 7-month delay.

The petitioner, Wanbury Ltd., filed a petition under sections 14(1)(a), 14(2), and 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Relief to Buyer in Scrap Sale Contract Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act. Court Restrains Seller from Selling Scrap to Third Parties Pending Arbitration, Holding Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience in Favor of Buyer.

The petitioner, Chetan Iron LLP, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures pending arbi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Section 9 Petition in Development Dispute — Directs Deposit of Rs.12.5 Crores and Appointment of Court Receiver. Clause 6 of MOU for Refund on Default Forms Basis for Interim Relief Under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioners, four individuals, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent, a developer, on 29 July 2011 for development ...