Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.55 seconds)Section 34 in The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 February, 2003
26. CoD was constituted pursuant to the above directions of the Supreme
Court. The PMA on the other hand had been established by an Office
W.P.(C) No. 7887/2011 & 7898/2011 Page 17 of 26
Memorandum dated 30.03.1989. The provisions for resolution of disputes
through the PMA was retained in the Office Memorandum dated
22.01.2004 and provision for clearance from CoD was added. The
contention of KPT that both CoD and the PMA were inexplicably
interlinked cannot be accepted as the PMA was set up independent of and
prior to the directions in the ONGC cases. The Supreme Court in Oil and
Natural Gas Commission and Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise:
S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 1986
32. The reference made by learned counsel for KPT to the decision of
the Supreme Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President Madras Bar
Association: 2010 (11) SCC 1 and S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
and Others: (1987) 1 SCC 124 is misplaced. The subject matter of disputes
in those proceedings involved the constitution of Tribunals, which was
formed under a statute and certain functions and the jurisdiction to
adjudicate disputes, which were otherwise adjudicated by Courts, were
vested with the Tribunals. The question as to the independence of the
Tribunals was in issue in those matters. In the present case, the disputes
have been referred to arbitration by consent of parties, the Arbitral Tribunal
is constituted not by a statute but by consent of parties. The A&C Act
governs the role of Courts where parties have agreed to resolve their
disputes before the Contractual Forum. The decisions referred to by the
learned counsel for KPT are not an authority for the proposition that all
dispute resolution mechanisms must involve judicial intervention and be
subject to judicial review.
Electronics Corp.Of India Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 February, 2011
41. Lastly, it cannot be ignored that the disputes involved are amongst a
statutory body controlled by the government of India and Government
Corporations. The Supreme Court in several decisions including the ONGC
Cases had expressed that such disputes should be resolved without
litigation. The orders passed in ONGC Cases were recalled in Electronics
Corporation of India (supra), not because the intention of avoiding
litigation through CoD was not laudatory but because the mechanism of
CoD had not worked effectively. Viewed in this perspective, KPT's stand
to avoid the PMA by contending that it was without its consent or that it
was coerced clearly indicates KPT's propensity for litigating unfairly,
which must be discouraged.
M/S. Ircon International Ltd. vs M/S. National Building Construction ... on 28 November, 2008
However, in the
supplementary written submissions submitted by KPT, KPT sought to
distinguish the said case by contending that in Ircon (supra) the issue
involved was with respect to execution of the arbitration award and the role
of Courts to execute the awards under Section 36 of the A&C Act. It was
contended that in the present case, KPT had not challenged the award under
Section 34 of the A&C Act because the same had been excluded under the
agreement.
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
In
support of this contention, the counsel relied upon the decision in
Nagubai Ammal and Ors v. B. Shamma Rao and Ors: AIR 1956
SC 593;
Luga Bay Shipping Corporation & ... vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... on 22 November, 1996
16.6 That a dispute with respect to demurrages could be agitated as a civil
dispute. KPT had the power, though to be exercised by its Board to
waive demurrages and thus a dispute with regard to the same could
be raised. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of Supreme
Court in Luga Bay Shipping Corporation & Anr. v. Board of
Trustees of the Port of Cochin & Anr.: (1997) 1 SCC 631 and
contended that said decision was an authority for the proposition that
the law did not preclude the filing of a civil suit wherein the quantum
of damages was worked out by the Board. And therefore, a claim
before an arbitral tribunal would also be maintainable.
Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 January, 1994
In Oil and Natural Gas
Commission and Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise :1995 Supp. (4)
SCC 541, the Supreme Court had directed the Government of India to set
up a High Power Committee for examining the disputes before clearing
them for being litigated. The relevant extract of the said judgment is
quoted below:-