Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd vs Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd on 3 June, 2019

M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. vs M/S. Shoft Shipyard Private Limited, on 4 October, 2024

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

M/S.Dredging Corporation Of India vs M/S. Shoft Shipyard Private Limited on 4 October, 2024

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

M/S.Dredging Corporation Of India vs M/S.Shoft Shipyard Private Limited on 4 October, 2024

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

M/S. Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. vs M/S. Shoft Shipyard Private Limited, on 4 October, 2024

18. With reference to the contention that modification of Award is not permitted / contemplated under Section 34 of the Act, the learned counsel emphatically submitted that it is well within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to remove the bad part from the good part of the Award. It is his contention that the DCI had not raised any objection with regard to power of the Court to partially sever an Award. He submits that the Award is severable and separable and therefore, the contention that the Commercial Court committed an error in modifying the Awards, deserves no appreciation. While distinguishing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem referred to supra and referring to the decisions mentioned in the written submissions i.e., Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India 5 , Manish v. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation6, Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another v. Bapu Constructions7, Balmer Lawrie & Co.Ltd., v. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,8 and Power Mech Projects Ltd., v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation9, the learned counsel submits that the interim relief sought for may be considered, only on the condition of depositing 100% of the decretal 5 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982 6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863 7 (2015) 5 SCC 267 8 2024 SCC OnLine Bombay 758 9 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 2049 9 amounts and urges for withdrawal of the amounts so deposited, without any conditions.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Jayasurya - Full Document

M/S Tricon Energy Uk Limited Through Its ... vs M/S Kriti Industries (India) Limited on 6 August, 2024

4] The prayer is opposed by Shri Ashwin Shanker, learned counsel for the applicant appearing through video conferencing, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the non-applicant chose not to appear, despite service of notice, and apart from that, the award being a money decree is liable to be satisfied in full and thus, the non-applicant be directed to deposit the entire amount, including the principal and the interest as awarded by the Arbitrator, which is worth more than Rs.3 crores. 5] In support of his submissions, Shri Shanker has also relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by the Bombay High Court in the cases of Kanpur Jal Sansthan and another Vs. Bapu Constructions reported as (2015) 5 SCC 267; Manish Vs. Godawari Marathawada Irrigation Development Corporation reported as 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3863; Pam Development Private Limited Vs. State of West Signature Not Verified Signed by: PANKAJ PANDEY Signing time: 07-08-2024 15:09:14 3 AC No.60-2024 Bengal reported as (2019) 8 SCC 112; Toyo Engineering Corporation and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3455; State of Maharashtra through the Executive Engineer Vs. Patel Engineering Limited and others reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12596; and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. Vs. Shilpi Engineering Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 758 to submit that no interference is called for, and the decree being a money decree needs to be satisfied in full.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Cpf India Pvt. Ltd. Thro Its Section ... vs Yunus Ahmad Mulani on 13 October, 2025

14. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Balmer Lawire & Co Ltd Vs Shilpi Engineering Pvt Ltd, 3 wherein after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Srei Infrastructures Finance Limited Vs Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Projects Pvt Ltd4 and Manish Vs Godawari Marathwada Irrigation 3 2024 SCC Online Bom 758.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document
1   2 Next