Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (4.26 seconds)
Documents citing National Thermal Power Corporation ... vs Wig Brothers Builders And Engineers ... on 17 April, 2009

N H P C Ltd & 2 Ors vs M/S Oriental Engineer & Anr on 1 April, 2016

In support of his aforesaid argument, Mr. Choudhury has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1989) 2 SCC 38 (M/s. Sudarshan Trading Co. vs. Government of Kerala and another); (2007) 2 SCC 453 (Ramanth International Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India); (1999) 9 SCC 283 (Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs. Easter Engineering Enterprises and another); (2003) 8 SCC 154 (Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. Vs. Annapurna Construction) ; (2006) 1 SCC 86 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co.) and (2010) 13 SCC 377 (Oil and Natural gas Corporation Vs. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited).
Gauhati High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs Ncc-Vee(Jv) on 12 April, 2018

48. xxxxxxx O.M.P. (COMM) 149/2017 Page 8 of 16 vi. The Act clearly specifies that such a declaration in writing is to be given when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment. This provision is usually Interpreted in. such a way that a negative declaration is not necessary. That is to say that if no circumstances exist giving rise to any justifiable doubt etc. such a declaration in advance "when a person is approached etc." is not necessary. And therefore Arbitrators by and large, make such declarations during first hearing of the Arbitral Tribunal. In this connection a reference is invited to paragraph 40 of the Delhi High Court Judgment 2009(2) Arb. LR 238 NTPC Ltd. Vs. WIG Brothers Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Y Khanna - Full Document

M/S N.E. Link Express vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd on 4 August, 2009

17. The Division Bench of this court in Gyan Chand Totu Vs. Subhash Chand FAO (OS) No.1 of 2004, as quoted in NTPC Ltd. Vs. Wig Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd. 160 (2009) DLT 642 has held that the pivotal principle while deciding the scope for interference with awards on ground of public policy is that the award can be set aside if it is patently illegal, but the illegality must go to the root of the mater and if the illegalities are of trivial nature, it cannot be held that the award is against public policy. It was further held that the award can be set aside, if it is so unfair and unreasonable, so as to shock the conscience of the court.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Kavita Gambhir vs Hari Chand Gambhir & Anr. on 7 September, 2009

In support of these submissions learned counsel placed reliance on three reported decisions of this court reported as 160 (2009) Delhi Law Times 642, "National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. v. Wig Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd.", 2002 (65) DRJ 146, "Ranbir Yadav v. State Bank of India" and 81 (1999) Delhi Law Times 370, "Amrit Kaur v. M/s. Om Prakash Fateh Chand Ltd. & Anr." and one unreported decision in RFA No. 286/2007 " Ramesh Kumar Handoo vs Binay Kumar Basu"
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 26 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Jetlite (India) Ltd. vs M/S. T.V.C. Sky Shop on 10 October, 2012

She also placed reliance upon the decisions in Guru Mehar Constructions v. Delhi Development Authority 2002 (2) Arb LR 254 (Delhi) (DB), National Thermal Power Corporation Limited v. WIG Brothers (Builders & Engineers) Limited 2009 (2) Arb LR 238 (Delhi), Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College (1987) 2 SCC 555, Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul AIR 1966 SC 735 and M/s Trojan & Company v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Poysha Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Ashwini Suri & Others on 30 July, 2009

27. The Division Bench of this court in Gyan Chand Totu Vs. Subhash Chand FAO(OS) No.1 of 2004, as quoted in NTPC Ltd. Vs. Wig Brothers Builders & Engineers Ltd. 160 (2009) DLT 642, has held that the pivotal principle while deciding the scope for interference with award on grounds of public policy is that the award can be set aside if it is patently illegal, but the illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegalities are of trivial nature, it OMPs No.126&127/2001 Page 19 of 25 cannot be held that the award is against public policy. It was further held that the award can be set aside if it was so unfair and unreasonable so as to shock the conscience of the court.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 3 Next