Search Results for "Karnataka High Court Arbitration Rules"

183 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 183 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Application to Place Additional Documents in Arbitration Proceedings — Petitioner's Application Under Rule 4(b) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration Rules, 2001 Read with Section 151 CPC Wrongly Dismissed as Not Maintainable.

The petitioner, M/s. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, a Government of Karnataka undertaking, filed a writ petition under A...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Rejecting Application to Place Arbitration Award on Record. The limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only to filing of application to set aside award, not to filing of award itself.

The petitioner, M/s. Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (KEONICS), a Government of Karnataka undertaking, filed a writ petiti...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Challenge to Settlement Commission Order in Income Tax Case. ITSC's order under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 upheld as valid and not perverse.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – II, Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31st July 2013 passed by the Income Tax Settl...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Petition Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for Appointment of Sole Arbitrator in Shareholder Dispute. Court Appoints Retired Judge as Arbitrator Due to Respondents' Failure to Appoint.

The petitioner, Mr. Bhupinder Singh Chadha, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Agreement to Sell Not Proved as Genuine. Court finds that the plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving the agreement and that the defendant's possession was permissive, leading to dismissal of the suit.

The appellants (defendants) challenged the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, in O.S. No. 82/2010, wh...