Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.32 seconds)

Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Private ... vs Tidel Park Limited

20. The judgment of State of Gujarat v. Kothari and Associates reported in 2016 14 SCC 761, the law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present facts of the case. It can be said binding precedent has not been followed and thereby the award is liable to be set aside. This Court has also decided in the previous points that the claim is not barred by limitation thereby the question of against public policy would not attract. The citation referred by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable to the present facts of the case because the above said case laws are pertaining to the public policy. Once the limitation point is decided as against the appellant no question of involvement of public policy would arise, therefore the award passed by the Arbitrator and the order pased by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Original Petition by declining to interfere with the award of the Arbitrator is well reasoned order and thereby considering the scope of interference is very much limited by this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the award passed bythe Arbitrator as well as the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Private ... vs Tidel Park Limited

20. The judgment of State of Gujarat v. Kothari and Associates reported in 2016 14 SCC 761, the law laid down the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present facts of the case. It can be said binding precedent has not been followed and thereby the award is liable to be set aside. This Court has also decided in the previous points that the claim is not barred by limitation thereby the question of against public policy would not attract. The citation referred by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable to the present facts of the case because the above said case laws are pertaining to the public policy. Once the limitation point is decided as against the appellant no question of involvement of public policy would arise, therefore the award passed by the Arbitrator and the order pased by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Original Petition by declining to interfere with the award of the Arbitrator is well reasoned order and thereby considering the scope of interference is very much limited by this Court as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, the award passed bythe Arbitrator as well as the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no interference. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1