Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs M/S. Kothari & Associates on 16 October, 2015

Karnataka State Highways Improvement vs M/S Rvcpl Ridl Jv on 5 January, 2022

52. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal has disregarded the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Vs Kothari & Associates relied upon by the respondent, despite demonstrating that the cause of action for loss of overheads, loss due to idling of plant and machinery, loss of profits and loss due to delay in making payment on approval of variation arose from the cause of action for disputes 2 and 3 before the first AT. The Arbitral Tribunal also failed to appreciate that such a claim was barred by limitation. Disregard for the law laid down by the superior courts amounts to violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law. Therefore, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative holding that the impugned award is liable to be set aside U/s 34(2)(b)(ii) and 34(2A) of the Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Arkay Energy (Rameswarm) Limited vs Tidel Park Limited on 23 March, 2023

The term of Agreement is six years from the date of commencement of supply [Art.VI.1.1]. Even if the agreement is terminated as per the provisions contained in Article VI, the obligations in this Agreement will remain unaffected [Art.VI.5]. The obligation of the parties shall survive cancellation, expiration or termination of the Agreement, on compensation for short supply by the Respondent to the Claimant or payment by the Claimant to the Respondent for the energy consumed. It stipulates cancellation, expiration or termination of the Agreement shall not relieve the parties of their obligations under the Agreement [Art.XI.1 and XI.2]. Schedule I appended to Ex.C-7 makes it very clear that the Annual Power requirements from the Respondent is 26 million units on firm basis and 32 million units on non-firm basis. A combined reading of all the above clauses in Ex.C-7 would definitely point out that the obligation is continuous during the term of the Contract and the case does not present a successive or multiple breaches as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel, State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates is clearly distinguishable on facts as Ex.C-7 contains excessive clauses Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.No.274 of 2021 as have been referred in the previous paragraphs and therefore this argument does not hold water.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

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
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Abdul Hameed S/O Abdul Kalam vs Abdul Aleem Khan S/O Abdul Kalam Khan on 4 October, 2021

8. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates as referred above, has observed that in fact duty is cast on the Court to consider issue of limitation even on its own initiative and since the Court failed to do so, the appellant's side was competent to raise this legal question in appeal and indeed even in any successive appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S M Modak - Full Document

Abdul Hameed S/O Abdul Kalam vs Abdul Aleem Khan S/O Abdul Kalam Khan on 4 October, 2021

8. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates as referred above, has observed that in fact duty is cast on the Court to consider issue of limitation even on its own initiative and since the Court failed to do so, the appellant's side was competent to raise this legal question in appeal and indeed even in any successive appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S M Modak - Full Document

P.Janakiraman vs The Commissioner on 8 August, 2023

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgement reported in 2016 (14) SCC 761 – State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates, was considering the similar case, where the respondent who had participated in the tender floated by the State of Gujarat in that case, for every extension that was granted to the contractor had sought for compensation for the monetary loss due to the extended time limit and on every occasion the State had denied the compensation. The contractor had also received the full payment under protest on 01.01.1982 and the security deposit was also refunded. On 07.08.1983, the contractor had issued a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC to the State claiming damages. Ultimately, the suit was filed on 25.01.1985. The Trial Court held in favour of the contractor against which the State had preferred an appeal before the High Court and the contractor had also filed a counter claim. The High Court had dismissed the appeal and the said dismissal order was taken up to the 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No. 642 of 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Abdul Hameed S/O Abdul Kalam vs Abdul Aleem Khan S/O Abdul Kalam Khan on 4 October, 2021

8. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kothari and Associates as referred above, has observed that in fact duty is cast on the Court to consider issue of limitation even on its own initiative and since the Court failed to do so, the appellant's side was competent to raise this legal question in appeal and indeed even in any successive appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S M Modak - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next