Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 292 (2.27 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Msk Projects (I)(Jv) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 21 July, 2011

Ennore Port Limited vs M/S H.C.C. Van Oord Acz Joint Venture on 20 September, 2013

12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court was quoted with approval in a subsequent pronouncement in MSK PROJECTS INDIA (JV) LTD. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER (cited supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after quoting the earlier decision, was pleased to fix the interest payable at 10% under Section 31(7)(b) of the Act. Therefore, applying the said ratio, we are of the view that the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as confirmed by the learned single Judge, would require a modification to the effect that instead of 15% interest awarded, it should be 10% per annum.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

State Of Raj Thr Chief Er Pwd vs M/S Msk Projects India Ltd on 4 October, 2018

Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Vivek Dangi for the claimant submitted that the state's appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 as also the objections under Section 34 thereof before the Commercial Court are/ were premised on a selective and consequent misreading of the remand order dated 21-7-2011 passed by the Apex Court. Mr. Ashok Mehta emphatically submitted that from a wholistic reading of the Apex Court's order it is evident that it had 17 concurred with the conclusion of the Single Judge in his judgment dated 24-4-2007, MSK Projects (I)(JV) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, [2008(2) RLW 1157 (Raj.)] that the State was in clear breach of the agreement dated 19-8-1998 in preventing the claimant from collecting toll on Bharatpur-Deeg section (1.25 km) of the Bharatpur bye-pass, albeit the said section was very much a composite and integral part of the toll road over which the claimant was entitled to collect toll, at State Government's notified rates, from vehicles using it. Mr. Ashok Mehta submitted that the Apex Court in its judgment dated 21- 7-2011, MSK Projects (I)(JV) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, [(2011)10 SCC 573] did not set aside or even adversely comment upon the joint traffic survey of 2001 with regard to traffic on Bharatpur-Deeg section of the Bharatpur Bye-pass on which the claimant was entitled to collect toll under the agreement dated 19-8-1998. The concession period was specified as 111 months from the handing over of the project site to the claimant. The toll was to be collected from the date Phase-I was completed and State government in fact so allowed it to be initially collected including on the Bharatpur-Deeg section beginning 12-4-2000. From the date of completion of Phase-I, and state Government's, go ahead for toll collection, the 18 last date for collection of toll, admittedly worked out to 6-4- 2008. No term of the agreement permitted variation of the concession period as set out except by mutual consent of the contracting parties in specified situations of enhancement or reduction in the rates of toll collection notified by the State Government. Such a situation admittedly never arose during the currency of the agreement dated 19-8-1998. Mr. Ashok Mehta submitted that subsequent to the completion of construction of Phase-I of the Bharatpur bye-pass and commencement of toll collection, the claimant, on being prevented from collecting toll on Bharatpur-Deeg section 1.25 km by the State Government itself, raised a dispute in regard thereto and sought damages by way of compensation. Thereupon a 24 hours joint survey with the participation of the officers of the state and the claimant was held between 3-7-2001 and 10-7-2001 (24 hours each day) for determining the vehicular traffic on the aforesaid Bharatpur-Deeg section from which the claimant was entitled to collect toll. Based on aforesaid joint survey of 2001 and reckoning for State Government's notified rates for toll collection table-2 and table-3 appended to award dated 1-12- 2003 were prepared. It was submitted that objection at the State's instance to the joint survey of 2001 is as an afterthought, 19 essentially dishonest, hit by estoppel and of no event. And in any event Mr. Ashok Mehta submitted the traffic survey of 1994 or 1997 aside of admittedly being unilateral, random and avowedly non binding was wholly irrelevant for ascertainment of damages/ compensation to the claimant for being prevented from collecting toll on the Bharatpur-Deeg section. Mr. Ashok Mehta drew the attention of the court to clause 1 of the technical report appended to the bid document which clearly provided that the survey of 1994 was unilateral, not done meticulously but random. And for reason of that a disclaimer was made stating that no guarantee for the data included in the project report could be given by Government and the entrepreneur should make his own assessment also. Mr. Ashok Mehta submitted that subsequently a traffic survey the State on its own, alone conducted between 26-8-1997 to 28-8-1997 another survey (survey of 1997) which became part of the pre- bid meeting. Its methodology again remained the same as for the survey of 1994--and it remained non binding. The bidders continued to go forward with their own estimate of the manner and extent of recovery of the investments and cost to be expanded by them on the construction of the 10.850 km Bharatpur bye-pass. Mr. Ashok Mehta submitted that the entire 20 controversy raised by the State with regard to validity of the joint survey of 2001 for determination damages/ compensation for the claimant being prevented from collecting toll on Bharatpur-Deeg section of the Bharatpur Bye-pass is thus wholly dishonest, unbecoming and without any foundation either in contract or in law. This also for the reason that the right of the claimant to compensation for reason of the State's breach of the contract has been affirmed by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 21-7-2011 as also has been, at least impliedly the joint survey of 2001 as the foundation thereof testified as it is from the Apex Court not setting aside the reliance of the Single Judge on the joint survey of 2001 in his judgment dated 24-4-2007. The judgment of the Apex Court on 21-7-2011 on appeal thereagainst only entailed a limited remand on two issues delineated in para 50 thereof. Hence only the issue of what amount could be recovered by the claimant for Bharatpur-Deeg section part of the Bharatpur bye-pass from vehicles using it and the issue as to what could be the effect of the contract from the non execution of phase-II by the claimant was open for the Arbitral Tribunal to address. Even otherwise there was no material or good cause before the Arbitral Tribunal to discard the joint survey of 2001 regarding vehicular 21 traffic on the Bharatpur-Deeg section (1.25 km) as the basis of damages for the State's breach.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Expat Projects And vs Sri K.C. Alva on 23 June, 2018

46. Further, in the decision between MSK Projects Ltd., vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2011 (10) SCC 573, the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land has held that it is settled legal proposition that Arbitral tribunals get jurisdiction to proceed with a case only from the reference made to them. It is further held that it is not permissible for the Arbitral tribunal to travel beyond the terms of reference. Arbitral tribunal cannot exercise powers so as to enlarge the scope of reference made.
Bangalore District Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan Through Chief ... vs M/S Madhav Infra Projects Limited, ... on 12 November, 2024

In MSK Projects India (JV) Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), the controversy was entirely distinct, and the Apex Court reinstated the Award because the defence was not put forth before the tribunal and could not be raised in an appeal under sec- tions 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. In that case, the State did not raise the defence before the tribunal that the condition of is- suance of notification was not enumerated in the agreement.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shakti Nath And Ors. vs Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Ltd. ... on 8 May, 2017

Equally, if the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction (Ref MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 2011 (10) SCC 573; G. Ramachandra Reddy v Union of India 2009 (6) SCC 414; McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181 and Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. 1984 (4) SCC 679).
Delhi High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Skyline Construction & Housing vs Mr. Sujith Kushalappa on 29 March, 2022

17. Now, coming to the decision quoted before the learned Arbitrator, i.e., the decision in the case of Kailash Nath Associates Vs. Delhi Development Authority, MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd., Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, and some other decisions, the learned Arbitrator has taken into account these aspects in para No. 26 to 29 of the award and discussed the same with reference to the decision. Learned Arbitrator has also referred to Section 74 of the Contract and stated that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act clearly provides for compensation for breach of contract, where penalty is stipulated or going by 24 Com.A.P 62/2021 mandate of the said substantive provisions of law and relevant terms of the agreement, particularly, clause No.13, learned Arbitrator has calculated, damages at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq., from the date of promised possession as per the Ex.P1. Therefore, the same cannot be found fault with. The contention that the award is against Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act is incorrect as the claim for damages to the tune of Rs.17 lakhs has been negatived. By going through all these aspects, one thing is clear that learned Arbitrator has given anxious attention to each and every aspect, including the terms of the contract, oral evidence and admission given by the claimant and also the second respondent before him and answered issues properly.
Bangalore District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next