Judgments - Arbitration
JEPH BEV PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS VERSUS DELHI INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE & ORS
C S ELECTRIC LTD. VERSUS JOP POWER
CAMPBELL RESTAURANT PVT. LTD. VERSUS ARIA HOTELS AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD.
M/S GREEN RETREAT AND MOTELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
M/S INDIABULLS DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS M/S B.G.A REALTORS
CITY LIFELINE TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD (4/2021)
M/S VSK TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD
KNOWLEDGE PODIUM SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS S M PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.
M/S JAY PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NORTHERN RAILWAYS
M/S VEEKAY PRESTRESSED PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NORTHERN RAILWAYS
M/s Vijay Energy Equipments Versus West Central Railway
Law Laid Down:- The applicant having failed to waive off the applicability of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, the respondent-Railways would be justified in invoking Clause 64(3) of the General Conditions of Contract, as amended by them after amendment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 w.e.f. 23.10.2015, thereby forwarding the panel of three retired officers of Railways and calling upon the applicant to choose two of them for appointing one out of them as nominee Full Judgment
HARYANA SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE (HARSAC) & ANR. Versus M/S PAN INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
JONES LANG LASALLE BUILDING OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS TECHPARK MAINTENANCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
M/s. N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. Versus M/s. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD. & OTHERS
M/S EAGLE EYE SECURITY AND HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES VERSUS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
SIDDHAST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS TRADEMARKS
BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD.
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD. VERSUS RAMJAN ALI & ORS.
Sasan Power Limited, Singrauli versus Madhya Pradesh Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council & another
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 -Section 17 and 18- the reference to the Council- the provision is beneficent in nature and, therefore, must be given wide construction. The respondent No.2’s reference was rightly entertained by the Council. More so, when objections (Annexure P/6 & P/10) filed by the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of council is not pregnant with a factual objection regarding non filing of memorandum by respondent No.2 under Section 8 of the Act. Section 18 of Micro, Small Full Judgment