Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 402 (2.07 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.J.G.Engineers Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 April, 2011

[M/S.M.R.Hi-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs . The Union Of India] on 7 July, 2020

29. As already alluded to supra, in two sentences, the entire counter claim of Southern Railway has been accepted and the counter claim has been acceded to. These two sentences make up the terse second paragraph 24/26 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in O.P.No.45 of 2012 dated 07.07.2020 [M/s.M.R.HI-Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India] in page 7 of the impugned award supra which has been extracted and reproduced supra. In my considered view, this clearly lacks fidelity of judicial approach.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - M Sundar - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd. on 21 August, 2023

―14. As in the aforesaid decision, in the case on hand also, the award has dealt with and decided several claims separately and distinctly. Therefore, if the court finds the award with regard to some claims to be bad, the court can segregate the award on items which did not suffer from any infirmity and uphold the award to that extent. If such an interpretation is not given, it would result in gross injustice and absurd results because the court would have to set aside that portion of the award also which suffers from no infirmity. This certainly cannot be what was contemplated by the Legislature. No reference has been made to J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in Hakeem's case nor has it been distinguished or overruled. The decision in J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. is apparently not under Article 142 of the Constitution also.
Delhi High Court Cites 141 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

Arora Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. on 26 September, 2012

In that view of the matter, subject to the Petitioner filing an application in CS(OS) No. 2203 of 2003 seeking leave to withdraw the said suit with liberty to have the disputes concerning penalty under Clause 2 of the contract also referred to arbitration, in light of the law explained by the Supreme Court in J.G. Engineers Private Limited v. Union of India, the impugned Award in respect of Claim Nos. 2, 9 and 10 is set aside and liberty is granted to the Contractor to seek reference of Claim Nos. 2, 9 and 10 including the disputes arising out of the levy of penalty under Clause 2 to arbitration in accordance with law. The impugned Award as to the remaining clauses is upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Bansal Brothers on 31 January, 2022

27. Relying upon the law laid in the cases of (i) Associate Builders (supra); (ii) Ssangyong Engineering & Constructions Co. Ltd. (supra); (iii) M/s Arosan Enterprises Ltd (supra); (iv) OMP (Comm.) No. 71/2020 Union of India vs M/s Bansal Brothers & Anr. Page 26 of 28 Patel Engineering Ltd. (supra); (v) Vishal Engineers & Builders vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra); (vi) Essban Paints Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. (supra); (vii) United Telecoms Limited vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (supra); (viii) Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd. vs J.M. Combines (supra); (ix) State of Rajasthan vs Puri Construction Co. Ltd (supra); (x) Sudersan Trading Company vs Government of Kerala & Anr. (supra); (xi) Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala & Ors. (supra); (xii) Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Karkhana Ltd. vs Krupp Industries Ltd. (supra); (xiii) Oil & Natural Gas Corporation vs M/s Wig Brothers Builders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (supra); (xiv) Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra); (xv) P.R Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd vs B.H.H. Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra); (xvi) M/s Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission of India (supra); (xvii) NTPC Ltd vs Marathon Electric Motors India Ltd. (supra); (xviii) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd. (supra); (xix) J.G. Engineers Ltd. vs UOI (supra); (xx) State of Karnataka vs Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills (supra); (xxi) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Motorola (P) Ltd. (supra) and (xxii) Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority (supra) it can be said that not only the reasonings of Ld. Sole Arbitrator are logical, but all the material and evidence were taken note of by Ld. Sole Arbitrator and this Court cannot substitute its own evaluation of conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion other than that of Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Cogent grounds, sufficient reasons have been assigned by Ld. Sole Arbitrator in reaching the just conclusion OMP (Comm.) No. 71/2020 Union of India vs M/s Bansal Brothers & Anr. Page 27 of 28 and no error of law or misconduct is apparent on the face of the record. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and it is not open to this Court to sit in the appeal over the conclusion/findings of facts arrived at by Ld. Sole Arbitrator, who is experienced Chief Engineer and was competent to make assessment while taking into consideration the facet of the matter. Re-appraisal of the matter cannot be done by this Court. No error is apparent in respect of the impugned award. I do not find any contradiction in the observations and findings given by Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The impugned award does not suffer from vice of irrationality and perversity. The conclusion of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator is based on a possible view of the matter, so the Court is not expected to interfere with the award. Even impugned award passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. The award is not against any public policy nor against the terms of contract of the parties. No ground for interference is made out. None of the grounds raised by the petitioner attract Section 34 of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gayatri Balasamy vs M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited on 30 April, 2025

In J.G. ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA, the Supreme Court observed that it is now well settled that if an Award deals with and decides several claims separately and distinctly and if such Award is found to be bad in regard to some items, the Court would be entitled to segregate the Award on the items which did not suffer from any infirmity so that it could be upheld to that extent.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 160 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Board Of Trustees vs M/S.Seaport Logistics Pvt Limited on 8 May, 2025

36.Question arose if an arbitral award can be partially set aside and whether it would amount to modification of the award. The learned Senior Counsel for the port trust relied on J.C. Budhraja v. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 444 and J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 758 in support of his contention that partial setting aside of the award would not amount to modification.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next