Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.59 seconds)
Prem Lata Surekha vs Sri Chakradhari Surekha & Ors. on 21 February, 2025 cites

M/S Shapoorji Pallonji And Co Pvt Ltd vs Sinnar Thermal Power Limited & Ors on 21 November, 2022

v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2611] . Finally, the Delhi High Court in ONGC Petro Additions [ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. v. Ferns Construction Co. Inc., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2582] settled the controversy and reiterated the position of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 140/2023 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 55/2023 Page 19 of 27 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:06.03.2025 20:14:51 law as laid down in Shapoorji Pallonji [Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2611] . The Court, inter alia, stated that Section 29-A(1) shall be applicable to all pending arbitrations seated in India as on 30-8- 2019 and commenced after 23-10-2015, and there is no strict timeline prescribed to the proceedings which are in nature of international commercial arbitration as defined under the Act, seated in India."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - P Jalan - Full Document

Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019

Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court endorsed the position in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , on the scope for interference with domestic awards, even after the 2015 Amendment : (Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. case [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

(2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] , SCC p. 171, paras 40-41) "40. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment Act really follows what is stated in paras 42.3 to 45 in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short, that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take. Also, if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge will now fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2-A).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Ongc Petro Additions Limited vs Fernas Construction Co. Inc on 21 July, 2020

v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2611] . Finally, the Delhi High Court in ONGC Petro Additions [ONGC Petro Additions Ltd. v. Ferns Construction Co. Inc., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2582] settled the controversy and reiterated the position of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 140/2023 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 55/2023 Page 19 of 27 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:06.03.2025 20:14:51 law as laid down in Shapoorji Pallonji [Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Jindal India Thermal Power Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2611] . The Court, inter alia, stated that Section 29-A(1) shall be applicable to all pending arbitrations seated in India as on 30-8- 2019 and commenced after 23-10-2015, and there is no strict timeline prescribed to the proceedings which are in nature of international commercial arbitration as defined under the Act, seated in India."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 11 - V K Rao - Full Document

Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. vs Ssangyong Engg. And Construction Co. ... on 9 May, 2013

Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 213] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court endorsed the position in Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] , on the scope for interference with domestic awards, even after the 2015 Amendment : (Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. case [Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - T K Kaushal - Full Document

Patel Engineering Ltd. vs North Eastern Electric Power ... on 22 May, 2020

39. In essence, the ground of patent illegality is available for setting aside a domestic award, if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse, or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at it; or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take; or, that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view. [Patel Engg. Ltd. v. North Eastern Electric Power Corpn. Ltd., (2020) 7 SCC 167 : (2020) 4 SCC (Civ)
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 166 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. on 18 February, 2019

40. A judgment setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It has been clarified by this Court, in a line of precedent, that the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 and restricted to the same grounds of challenge as Section 34. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163, para 14 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 293; Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, (2023) 9 SCC 85, para 18 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 458 : 2023 INSC 742, para 14.]
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 260 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar vs Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar And Anr on 12 December, 2006

19. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that Vishnu Kumar Surekha was specifically asked to show any document whereby Chakardhari Surekha had resigned from the firm but he had failed to produce the same. It is stated that Mr. Vishnu Kumar Surekha has admitted that the property is in the name of firm having the then original partners. It is stated that Vishnu Kumar Surekha has further admitted that the Form No.1 of the partnership firm filed by the Petitioner with written statement is different from the Form No.1 marked as Mark S. It is submitted that it is proved on record that Form No.1 and the record of Registrar of Firm have Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed O.M.P. (COMM) 140/2023 & OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 55/2023 Page 11 of 27 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:06.03.2025 20:14:51 been fabricated and manipulated. It is stated that from the cross-examination of Petitioner, it has been proved that Vishnu Kumar Surekha has illegally sold the property. It is stated that it was also specifically put to the said witness as to whether there was any dissolution deed signed by the Respondent to which no reply has been given. It is stated that as per the settled principles of law, the question as to whether the suit was barred by law or not also must be judged from the aspect of cause of action, and the rights and liability of the partner in respect of partnership property would be discharged only when the firm is finally wound up and the properties of the firm are distributed. It is stated that merely execution of dissolution deed will not discharge the party thereto from their rights and liability as held in Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar v. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar & Anr., (2006) 13 SCC 481. It is stated that in the present case it is has been proved on record that there is neither any dissolution deed nor any resignation executed by the Respondent, therefore, the claim of the Respondent is rightly allowed by the Arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 16 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking on 17 August, 2023

40. A judgment setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 is appealable in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It has been clarified by this Court, in a line of precedent, that the jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 and restricted to the same grounds of challenge as Section 34. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163, para 14 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 293; Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd. v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking, (2023) 9 SCC 85, para 18 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 458 : 2023 INSC 742, para 14.]
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - P S Narasimha - Full Document
1   2 Next