Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (3.82 seconds)
Documents citing Dda vs M/S Krishna Construction Co. on 26 September, 2011

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Planetcast Technologies Ltd on 5 April, 2021

(i) That it ignores the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the effect that an award cannot be passed on the basis of evidence or arguments beyond the pleadings of the parties. In the statement of claim, the respondent has nowhere pleaded that it is seeking a refund of the differential amount of service tax subsequent to lowering of the service tax rate. Therefore, the Learned Arbitrator has considered the irrelevant material while making the Award because it has allowed the claim even though there is no basis of the Award in the pleadings. Reliance has been placed in para 19 and 20 of "DDA v. Krishna Constructions 2011 SCC Online Del 4134"
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zakir Hussain & Anr. vs Sunshine Agrisystem Pvt. Ltd. on 6 October, 2023

71. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Public Works Department vs. Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd. & Anr. 2014 SCC OnLine Delhi 1343 endorsed the principles enunciated in Krishna Construction Company (supra) and on the facts of the case while considering the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 observed that the documents sought to be produced on record were beyond the material facts; in fact it was a new material fact which had no nexus with the defence raised and thus introducing them by way of additional documents, was not permitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document

M/S. Waves vs Sh. Ashok Chaudhary on 2 September, 2013

6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record carefully. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :­ (1) ONGC Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2629 (2) DDA Vs. R.S. Sharma & Company 152 (2008) DLT 6738 (SC) (3) Sankar Sealing Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jain Motor Trading Co. & Anr. AIR 2004 Madras 127 (4) DDA Vs. Krishna Construction Company 183 (2011) DLT 331 (5) Sineximco Pte.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Taqa Neyveli Power Company Private ... vs Nlc India Limited on 29 September, 2023

(emphasis supplied) Further he referred to the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nishiland Park Limited reported in 2012 CLC 1021 and the Judgment of the High Court of New Delhi in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishna Construction Co. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4134 and submitted that the respective Courts have set aside the Arbitral Awards on the ground that the Arbitrators have not considered whether the party claiming losses attempted to mitigate the same.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

Taqa Neyveli Power Company Private ... vs Nlc India Limited on 29 September, 2023

(emphasis supplied) Further he referred to the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nishiland Park Limited reported in 2012 CLC 1021 and the Judgment of the High Court of New Page 23 of 91 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.No.444 of 2021 & Arb.O.P.(Com.Div)No.5 of 2022 Delhi in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishna Construction Co. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4134 and submitted that the respective Courts have set aside the Arbitral Awards on the ground that the Arbitrators have not considered whether the party claiming losses attempted to mitigate the same.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

Taqa Neyveli Power Company Private ... vs Nlc India Limited on 29 September, 2023

(emphasis supplied) Further he referred to the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nishiland Park Limited reported in 2012 CLC 1021 and the Judgment of the High Court of New Page 23 of 91 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.No.444 of 2021 & Arb.O.P.(Com.Div)No.5 of 2022 Delhi in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishna Construction Co. reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 4134 and submitted that the respective Courts have set aside the Arbitral Awards on the ground that the Arbitrators have not considered whether the party claiming losses attempted to mitigate the same.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

Smifs Limited vs Mr. Sudhir Garg on 18 May, 2024

12. It is only if one of these conditions is met that the Court may interfere with an arbitral award in terms of Section 34(2) (b)(ii), but such interference does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute, and is limited to situations where the findings of Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Tomar Construction Company on 29 April, 2023 the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Paradise Interiors on 18 October, 2023

12. It is only if one of these conditions is met that the Court may interfere with an arbitral award in terms of Section 34(2) (b)(ii), but such interference does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute, and is limited to situations where the findings of Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Tomar Construction Company on 29 April, 2023 the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S R B Enterprises vs Union Of India on 5 September, 2024

12. It is only if one of these conditions is met that the Court may interfere with an arbitral award in terms of Section 34(2) (b)(ii), but such interference does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute, and is limited to situations where the findings of Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Tomar Construction Company on 29 April, 2023 the arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next