Chintels india ltd vs bhayana builders
WebJun 4, 2024 · 11. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. vs. Housing & Urban Development Corporation, OMP(COMM) 444/2024 Page 7 of 19 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2306, wherein it has been held that sufficient cause must be shown in the application for condonation of delay in order to be entitled to … WebFeb 14, 2024 · The firms' whose MDs were booked included Chintels India ltd, Chintel Export Pvt Ltd, Intels India Pvt Ltd, Rajkiran Pvt Ltd and Bhayana Builders, besides various architects, structural engineers and contractors involved in designing and building the high-rise, the official added. The second FIR was lodged on the complaint of …
Chintels india ltd vs bhayana builders
Did you know?
WebFeb 11, 2024 · The position was reiterated in the Western Builders case [(2006) 6 SCC 239] and also in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. v. Custodian . [(2004) 11 SCC 472] . There … http://iclrap.in/supreme-court-permits-condonation-of-delay-appeals-under-arbitration-act/
WebM/S Chintels India Limited Versus Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.. Court / Forum: High Court of Delhi Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 444/2024 Coram: Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh Subject: Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“1996 Act”) Date of Decision: June 4, 2024 . Brief Facts. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act … WebJul 8, 2024 · The present petition was heard along with OMP(COMM) 444/2024 captioned Chintels India Limited vs Bhayana Builders Private Limited - the application filed by Chintels under section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 03.05.2024 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of the disputes relating to Phase-I of the …
WebSep 8, 2024 · Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders P. Ltd Issue The Supreme Court decided in Chintels India Ltd ., whether an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 may be maintained from a decision refusing to excuse the appellant’s delay in submitting an application under Section 34 of the Act to set aside the ... WebFeb 11, 2024 · In our opinion, the issue is squarely answered against the respondent by the decision of this Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. [Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal …
WebFeb 11, 2024 · Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge) Appeal (Civil), 4028 of 2024, Judgment Date: Feb 11, 2024 CHINTELS INDIA LTD. Versus BHAYANA …
WebCHINTELS INDIA LTD. Vs. BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD CITATION : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4028 OF 2024JUDGE : Justice RF NarimanDate : 11.02.2024 LAW POINT : An appeal under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be maintainable, against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of fashion history courses ukWebDec 4, 2024 · Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court. on December 4, 2024 ... I. Case Reference . Case Citation: (2024) ibclaw.in 149 HC: Case Name: Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.: FAO(OS)(COMM) No.68/2024: Judgment Date: 04-Dec-20 ... BPDP/REO, Ranchi Vs. Scoot Wilson … fashion hits and misses 2018 golden globesWebChintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. 1 FACTS In Chintels India Ltd.2, the Supreme Court determined whether an appeal was maintainable under section 37 ()[c] of … fashion history masters degreefree web games for kidsWebCHINTELS INDIA LTD. Vs. BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD CITATION : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4028 OF 2024JUDGE : Justice RF NarimanDate : 11.02.2024 LAW POINT : An … fashion hits and misses of the weekWebMar 3, 2024 · Refusal To Condone Delay In Filing A Challenge To An Arbitral Award Under §34 Of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 Is Appealable: Chintels India Ltd v … fashion history in the philippinesWebAug 12, 2024 · Chintels India Ltd v. Bhayana Builders Pvt Ltd [Judgment dated February 11, 2024] The Supreme Court held that an order refusing to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is appealable under Section 37 of the Act. 21. Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. fashionhivesshoppe