Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.45 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
The High
Court has rightly followed the test set out in paragraph (42.3) of
Associate Builders (supra), which was reiterated in paragraph (40)
of the Ssangyong Engineering judgment (supra).
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In
paragraph (19) of the judgment, this Court noted that the expansive
interpretation given to “public policy of India” in the Saw Pipes
(supra) and Western Geco International Limited 20 cases, which had
been done away with, and a new ground of “patent illegality” was
introduced which would apply to applications under Section 34
made on or after 23.10.2015. In paragraphs (36) and (37) of the
judgment, this Court held that insofar as domestic awards are
concerned, the additional ground of patent illegality was now
available under sub-section (2A) to Section 34.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.Ltd vs Western Geco International Ltd on 4 September, 2014
26. Even though the High Court in paragraph (44) of the judgment
referred to various judgments, including Western Geco (supra)
[which is now no longer good law], the case has been decided on
the ground that the arbitral award is a perverse award and on a
holistic reading of all the terms and conditions of the contract, the
view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible view.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
This finding of the High Court is in
conformity with paragraph (40) of the judgment of this Court in
Ssangyong Engineering (supra).
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Kochi Cricket Pvt Ltd And Etc on 15 March, 2018
16. Patent illegality as a ground for setting aside a domestic
award was first expounded in the judgment of Saw Pipes Ltd.16
where this Court was dealing with a domestic award. This Court
gave a wider interpretation to the ‘public policy of India’ in Section
14 Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Others (2018) 6
SCC 287
15 Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Private Limited and Others (2018) 6
SCC 287
16 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705
9
34(2)(b)(ii) in Part I of the 1996 Act. The Court held that an award
would be “patently illegal”, if it is contrary to the substantive
provisions of law; or, provisions of the 1996 Act; or, terms of the
contract.
Durga Shankar Mehta vs Thakur Raghuraj Singh And Others on 19 May, 1954
10. After considering the Constitution Bench decision in Durga
Shankar Mehta6 and number of other judgments, in Bussa
Overseas7, the Court held that consistency is the cornerstone of the
4 Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753
5 Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another
(2016) 4 SCC 696
6 Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Others (1955) 1 SCR 267
7 Bussa Overseas and Properties Private Limited and Another v. Union of India and Another
(2016) 4 SCC 696
5
administration of justice and courts have evolved and formulated a
principle that if the basic judgment is not assailed and the challenge
is only to the order passed in review, the Supreme Court is obliged
not to entertain such special leave petitions. In paragraphs (30) and
(31) of Bussa Overseas8, the Supreme Court held as under:-