Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd vs Ircon International Ltd. on 3 November, 2017

M/S. Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Tilak Bachar on 13 May, 2019

16. He placed strong reliance on the decisions reported in ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. [2003 (5) SCC 705], MBL Infrastructures Limited vs. Ircon International Limited [2016 SCC Online Cal 7747], Associated Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority [2015 (3) SCC 49], MMTC Limited vs. Vedanta Limited [2019 SCC Online SC 220], Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi vs. Vijay Karia [2019 SCC Online Bom 19], ONGC vs. Western Geco [(2014) 9 SCC 263], Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Another [2002 (4) SCC 316] and Munithimmalah vs. State of Karnataka & Others [(2002) 4 SCC 326] which discuss the scope and ambit of section 34 of the Act. He further submitted that the Tribunal misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and erred in passing the impugned award. He submitted that the Tribunal placed undue reliance on the word "awh" and ignored the prior "yes" whereby the respondent confirmed each of the individual transactions made on 31.10.2013. He further submitted that there was no explanation given by the respondent for the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made after the impugned trades had been executed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - R K Kapur - Full Document

Uem India Pvt. Ltd vs Ongc Ltd on 28 March, 2026

4. Per contra, the PBG was furnished as per clause 3.3 of the GCC and could be invoked upon failure of the petitioner to honour the contractual obligations. The LD under clause 6.3.2 pertains to delay in completion of work. Both the clauses operate in distinct fields. It is argued that the upholding of invocation of the PBG by the tribunal is not under challenge and there were no pleadings for refund of the PBG amount. The impugned award and the order passed under Section 34(4) is defended by stating that a reasoned decision was rendered holding respondent to be entitled to damages of Rs.11,93,45,835/- over and above the LD. Reliance is on the decision of the Supreme Court in SAIL v. Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 63 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in MBL Infrastructures Ltd. v. Ircon International Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 21457 to buttress the argument that damages under heads not covered by the LD can be awarded.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1