In Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association v. Federation of Western India Cine Employees, the Commission clarified that its orders are in rem and not in personam. If an order was issued for market correction, the Commission was of the view that it was not obligated to take cognizance of successive informations brought by different parties’ agitating the same issue. To order investigation repeatedly on the same issues would result in sub- optimal utilisation of the resources of the Commission, and the same would cause wastage of public money besides being a futile exercise. Thus, the Commission concluded that no further deliberation upon the allegations was required as they have been dealt with in the aforesaid decision of the Commission.
In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security. The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Comments
Post a Comment