Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Shyama Charan Agarwala & Sons vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2002

Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2008

In the above case, it was held that even if an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:06:53 ::: :145: agreement is executed outside India or the parties to the agreement are not in India and the agreement may not be registrable under Section 33 of the MRTP Act, being an outside agreement, nevertheless, if there is a restrictive trade practice as a consequence of outside agreement is carried out in India, then the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in India will have jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 176 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Assignia-Vil Jv vs Rail Vikas Nigam Limited on 29 April, 2016

(iii) Shyama Charan Agarwal & Sons v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCC 201 (Para 21) "21. In our view the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. It is clear from the arbitration clause viz. clause 70 that all disputes between the parties to the contract (other than excepted matters) can be referred to arbitration. The Contractor did make a claim in respect of future period also. The document appointing the arbitrator would show that the arbitrator was required to decide the disputes arising between the parties. It is not possible to hold that Claim 1 insofar as it relates to future period during which the contract work continued is beyond the scope of reference or outside the ambit of arbitration clause. The aim of arbitration is to settle all the disputes between the parties and to avoid further litigation. There is no legal justification in restricting the scope of arbitration in the manner in which the High Court did. In the list of disputes which is annexed to the letter of appointment of the arbitrator, it is mentioned without any qualification or restriction as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 13 - M Singh - Full Document

Ircon International Limited vs Satya Prakash Builders Limited on 13 April, 2017

23. Mr. Chandan Kumar assailed the allowing of Claim No.1 regarding payment for the extra work in clearing the site of jungle and vegetation. In terms of the NCC, according to IRCON, this was not a claim referred for arbitration. Further the allowing of Claim No.1 was contrary to the contract. Reliance is placed on the decisions in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Sarvesh Chopra (2002) 4 SCC 45 and Shyama Charan Agarwala and Sons v. Union of India (2002) 6 SCC 201 both of which have held that if an Award is made plainly contrary to the terms of the contract it would lead to an inference that there is an error apparent on the face of the Award.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1