Search Results for "But not thereafter"

10 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 10 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Time-Barred Petition in Arbitration Dispute. State of West Bengal's Appeal Rejected; Three-Month Limitation Period Strictly Enforced

The State of West Bengal appointed the respondent as a contractor for bridge construction. Following a dispute, the respondent invoked arbitration, re...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Employee's Appeal in Resignation Withdrawal Case Under Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Withdrawal of Prospective Resignation Barred by Implied Contract and Estoppel as Correspondence Showed Mutual Agreement Making Resignation Final and Binding.

The appeal arose from a dispute over the withdrawal of a prospective resignation submitted by an employee before its effective date. The appellant, an...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Condoning Delay in Arbitration Challenge. Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Held Absolute and Not Extendable Beyond 30 Days.

The appellant, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., had provided a loan to the respondent, Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod, for purchase of tract...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Decision on Limitation in Insolvency Petition Initiated by Financial Creditor. Application Under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 Held Within Limitation After Excluding Time Spent in SARFAESI Proceedings Under Section 14(2) of Limitation Act, 1963.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissing an appeal against an order of the National Company ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Contract Dispute Over 'Change in Law' Clause — High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act. Interpretation of contractual clause by Arbitral Tribunal was plausible and not perverse, hence not liable to be set aside under Section 34.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC Ltd.) against the judgment of the Gauh...