Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18376 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

Devas Employees Mauritius Pvt. Ltd vs Antrix Corporation Limited & Ors. on 17 March, 2023

41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , while no longer being a ground for challenge under ―public policy of India‖, would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.
Delhi High Court Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Jumbo World Holdings Limited vs Embassy Property Developments Private ... on 5 July, 2024

28. The conclusion [Chenab Bridge Project v. Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3148] of the Division Bench of the High Court that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity is incorrect, as it overlooks the principle laid down in Associate Builders v. DDA [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] wherein this Court held : (Associate Builders case [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , SCC pp. 75-76, paras 32-33) “32. A good working test of perversity is contained in two judgments.
Madras High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

Jumbo World Holdings Limited vs Embassy Property Developments Private ... on 5 July, 2024

28. The conclusion [Chenab Bridge Project v. Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3148] of the Division Bench of the High Court that the award is liable to be set aside on the ground of perversity is incorrect, as it overlooks the principle laid down in Associate Builders v. DDA [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] wherein this Court held : (Associate Builders case [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , SCC pp. 75-76, paras 32-33) “32. A good working test of perversity is contained in two judgments.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

Ashok Thakur vs Of on 29 September, 2023

41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the grounds of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such a decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Governor Of Tamil Nadu vs Jm Combines

“...... 48. Given the parameters of judicial review laid down in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , it is obvious that neither the ground of fundamental policy of Indian law, nor the ground of patent illegality, have been made out in the facts of this case, given the fact that the majority award is certainly a possible view based on the oral and documentary evidence led in the case, which cannot be characterised as being either perverse or being based on no evidence.
Madras High Court Cites 122 - Cited by 0 - M Duraiswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next