Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 880 (1.87 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019

Shri Gopal Singh Thakur vs Of on 6 September, 2023

Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 1 observed as under : (SCC p. 12, para 25) '25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the Court should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on of facts and interpretation of contract exists. The Courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is implied rt unless such award portrays unpardonable under Section 34 of the perversity Arbitration Act.' " (emphasis supplied)
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Subaya Constructions Company ... vs M/S.P & C Projects (P) Ltd on 29 April, 2024

13. It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the Court cannot interfere in the Page 83 of 98 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.No.86 of 2023 plausible view taken by the arbitrator supported by reasoning. This Court in Dyna Technologies [Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 1] observed as under
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Jsc Cryogenmash on 30 April, 2024

68. Coming back to the present case and examining the contentions raised on the anvil of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court circumscribing the scope of interference, Court agrees with the Respondent that the impugned Award is a well-reasoned award and the findings are duly supported by a detailed analysis of documents, extensive correspondence between the parties during the execution of the contract, oral and documentary evidence including expert evidence. Tribunal has arrived at findings of fact and interpreted the Clauses of the contract including Clause 03.04, which is the prime bone of contention between the parties and in the limited window of interference in an International Commercial Award, this Court is unable to agree with the Petitioner that the Award deserves to be set aside. The contentions and arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, as noted above, show that an attempt is made to re-argue the entire case on merits, which is impermissible as this Court cannot enter into a merit-review of the award or re-appreciate the evidence as an Appellate Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 113 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

New Delhi Municipal Council vs Minosha India Limited on 22 April, 2025

13. It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the Court cannot interfere in the plausible view taken by the arbitrator supported by reasoning. This Court in Dyna Technologies [Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 1] observed as under : (SCC p. 12, para 25) „25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the Court should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The Courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA O.M.P. (COMM) 61/2025 Page 15 of 32 Signing Date:02.05.2025 11:42:13 provided in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.‟ "
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Ajay Singh vs Kal Airways Private Limited & Anr. on 17 May, 2024

(Dyna Technologies case [Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 1] , SCC p. 12, paras 24-25) ―24. There is no dispute that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act limits a challenge to an award only on the grounds provided therein or as interpreted by various courts. We need to be cognizant of the fact that arbitral awards should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award. Section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. The mandate under Section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as provided under the law. If the courts were to interfere with the arbitral award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated.
Delhi High Court Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next