advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Television licence
Indian Port Act sec. 34 – 2011 Policy – Except Licence , no lease, sale etc., – Since it is Licence – there is no right of renewal – Writ filed for renewal licence etc.,was dismissed by the High court – Apex court confirmed the same – Constitutional court in either granting or declining to grant a relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 can take note of developments either of fact or law which leave an impact on the rights and obligations of parties before the Court = Apex court dismissed the SLPs = = Yazdani International P. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Auroglobal Comtrade P. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41117
Indian Port Act sec. 34 – 2011 Policy – Except Licence , no lease, sale etc., – Since it is Licence – there is no right of renewal – Writ filed for renewal licence etc.,was dismissed by the High court – Apex court confirmed the same – Constitutional court in either granting or declining to grant a … Continue reading
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: s. 9-Application for interim measures by court-Unregistered partnership firm in liquor trade-Application by one of the partners for appointment of receiver to take charge of business of the firm-Trial court dismissing the application on the ground that name of the applicant does not figure in the register of firms as partner of the firm-High Court allowed the application holding that s.69(3) of the Partnership Act is not attracted to an application u/s 9 of the Act-High Court further directed that the partners who were running the business would run the business as receivers till 31.12..2003 and from 1.1.2004 to 31.3.2004 the applicant and two other partners of his group would run the business as receivers s.9-Unregistered partnership firm-Application by one of the partners for directions to appoint receiver-Maintainability of- s. 9- “party “-Invoking s. 9-An application u/s. 9 is not a suit- ‘Parity’ is defined in s. 2(1 )(h) to mean a party to an arbitration agreement-So right conferred by s.9 is on a party to an arbitration agreement-Right conferred by s. 9 cannot be said to be one arising out of a contract-Filing of an application u/s 9 by a party by virtue of its being a party to.an arbitration agreement is for securing a relief which the court has power to grant before, during, or after arbitral proceedings by virtue of s.9 of the Act-The relief sought for in an application u/s 9 is neither in a suit nor a right arising from a contract-Party invoking s.9 may not have actually commenced arbitral proceedings but must be able to satisfy the court that the arbitral proceedings are actually contemplated or manifestly intended. =2004 AIR 1433, 2004(1 )SCR404 , 2004(3 )SCC155 , 2004(1 )SCALE297 , 2004(2 )JT352 =Held, order passed by court should fall within the meaning of expression ‘an interim measure of protection’ as distinguished from an alt time of permanent protection-It is a serious matter to appoint a receiver on a running business-This is not a case of oppression of minority by majority-A better course would have been to allow the conduct of the business continuing in the hands of the persons who were doing so but at the same time issuing such directions and/or devising such arrangement as would protect and take care of the interest of those who are not actually running the business-Purpose of enacting s. 9 is to provide ‘interim measures of protection’-Though order of High Court appointing a receiver on the partnership business is maintained, the rest of the order is set aside- Directions given inter alia, for running the business by the group of partners who were running it prior to interim order of High Court under their control but as receivers, and for appointment of an official as observer- Interim order-Partnership Act, I932-s.69(3). Held, Court u/s 9 is only formulating interim measures so as to protect the right under adjudication before the arbitral tribunal from being frustrated-Prima facie, the bar enacted by s. 69 of Partnership Act does not affect the maintainability of an application under s.9 of the Act-s. 69 of Partnership Act has no bearing on the right of a party to an arbitration clause to file an application under s.9 of the Act. M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Ms. NEPC India Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 565, relied on. Kamal Pushpa Enterprises v. DR Construction Company, AIR (2000) SC 2676; Jagdish Chandra v. Kajaria Traders (Ind.) Ltd., AIR (1964) SC 1882 and Delhi Development Authority v. Kochhar Construction Work and Anr., [1998] 8 SCC 559, referred to. M/s. Shreeram Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Yasin Khan and Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 476, cited. Words and phrases: Word ‘before’ in s. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Connotation of. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 132 and 131 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2003 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.A. No.2484 of 2003. Harish N. Salve, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibaii, P. Chidambaram, R.F. Nariman, Vivek Tankha, Rohit Arya, C. Mukhopadhyaii, Manu Nair, Ms. Shalini, Rakesh K. Khanna, Aseem Mehrotra, Kanahaya Singh, Rajeev Singh, Rajesh Prasad Singh, Akshay Arora, P.K. Bansal, Pankaj Kr. Singh, K.L. Janjani and Ms. Abha R. Sharma for the appearing parties.
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 131-132 of 2004 PETITIONER: FIRM ASHOK TRADERS AND ANR. ETC. RESPONDENT: GURUMUKH DAS SALUJA AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2004(1)SCR 404 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted in both the SLPs. The dispute is among 12 … Continue reading
