Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.73 seconds)
Crsc Research And Design Institute ... vs Dedicated Freight Corridor ... on 3 December, 2020 cites

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

10. Since the time of the observations quoted above of the Supreme Court, there has been another vital development. The law relating to arbitration has been overhauled and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been enacted, both to expedite adjudication of commercial disputes. The Commercial Division of this Court, in this case, was approached by way of a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, for interim measures. In exercise of the said jurisdiction, the Commercial Division of this Court is not seized with adjudication of the substantive dispute between the appellant, at whose instance the BGs were furnished, and the respondent no.1, in whose favour the BGs were furnished. The said substantive dispute is to be decided in arbitration. This vital difference is to be kept in mind while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 inasmuch as any interpretation FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2020 Page 7 of 13 given by this Court to the terms of the contract, even though may be said to be on a prima facie view of the matter, has a potential of influencing the Arbitral Tribunal. Not only so, the grant / non-grant of interim measures under Section 9 is essentially discretionary and the scope of interference in appeal under Section 37 is much more limited than in an appeal arising from an interim order in a suit. Even in an appeal against an interim order in a suit, the scope of interference, as per the dicta in Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 is confined to cases where the Single Judge has exercise the discretion vested in him arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Single Judge has ignored settled principle of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions and does not extend to substituting own discretion for the discretion exercised by the Single Judge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs Jai Prakash Hyundai Corsortium on 17 March, 2006

11. The senior counsel for the appellant, without controverting that the BGs are absolute, unequivocal and unconditional, contended that since the BGs are in pursuance to a contract, it becomes essential to peruse the terms of the contract. It was the contention of the senior counsel for the appellant, that the respondent No.1 has not acted in terms of the contract in the matter of invocation of the BGs and thus a case of fraud is made out. It was argued that the contract has been terminated and the BGs encashed only on the ground of delay on the part of the appellant in executing the works under the contract but the respondent No.1 has given repeated extensions of time to the appellant for completion of the contract, admitting that the delay was attributable also to the respondent No.1 as well as the prevalent Covid-19 pandemic. It is further argued that the decision to terminate the contract was made public before the contract was actually terminated. It was thus FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2020 Page 8 of 13 contended that the invocation is fraudulent. It was further argued that monies are already due from the respondent no.1 to the appellant and if the respondent no.1 were to also receive the monies under the BGs, the same would put more burden on the appellant. However, not confining the claim for stay of encashment of BGs to the ground of fraud, it was also contended that the ground of special equities is made out, inasmuch as once the BGs are encashed, the appellant would be barred from bidding for any World Bank contract, causing irreparable injury to the appellant. Reliance was placed on judgment dated 26th July, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.77/2006 titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Hyundai Consortium 2006 SCC OnLine Del 339 [Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No.5456/2006 whereagainst was dismissed on 3rd April, 2006], judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 56 and judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9097.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 26 - R Sharma - Full Document

Continental Construction Ltd. And Anr. vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. on 12 January, 2006

11. The senior counsel for the appellant, without controverting that the BGs are absolute, unequivocal and unconditional, contended that since the BGs are in pursuance to a contract, it becomes essential to peruse the terms of the contract. It was the contention of the senior counsel for the appellant, that the respondent No.1 has not acted in terms of the contract in the matter of invocation of the BGs and thus a case of fraud is made out. It was argued that the contract has been terminated and the BGs encashed only on the ground of delay on the part of the appellant in executing the works under the contract but the respondent No.1 has given repeated extensions of time to the appellant for completion of the contract, admitting that the delay was attributable also to the respondent No.1 as well as the prevalent Covid-19 pandemic. It is further argued that the decision to terminate the contract was made public before the contract was actually terminated. It was thus FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2020 Page 8 of 13 contended that the invocation is fraudulent. It was further argued that monies are already due from the respondent no.1 to the appellant and if the respondent no.1 were to also receive the monies under the BGs, the same would put more burden on the appellant. However, not confining the claim for stay of encashment of BGs to the ground of fraud, it was also contended that the ground of special equities is made out, inasmuch as once the BGs are encashed, the appellant would be barred from bidding for any World Bank contract, causing irreparable injury to the appellant. Reliance was placed on judgment dated 26th July, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.77/2006 titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Hyundai Consortium 2006 SCC OnLine Del 339 [Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No.5456/2006 whereagainst was dismissed on 3rd April, 2006], judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 56 and judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9097.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 20 - S Kumar - Full Document

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd & Ors on 3 December, 2019

11. The senior counsel for the appellant, without controverting that the BGs are absolute, unequivocal and unconditional, contended that since the BGs are in pursuance to a contract, it becomes essential to peruse the terms of the contract. It was the contention of the senior counsel for the appellant, that the respondent No.1 has not acted in terms of the contract in the matter of invocation of the BGs and thus a case of fraud is made out. It was argued that the contract has been terminated and the BGs encashed only on the ground of delay on the part of the appellant in executing the works under the contract but the respondent No.1 has given repeated extensions of time to the appellant for completion of the contract, admitting that the delay was attributable also to the respondent No.1 as well as the prevalent Covid-19 pandemic. It is further argued that the decision to terminate the contract was made public before the contract was actually terminated. It was thus FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2020 Page 8 of 13 contended that the invocation is fraudulent. It was further argued that monies are already due from the respondent no.1 to the appellant and if the respondent no.1 were to also receive the monies under the BGs, the same would put more burden on the appellant. However, not confining the claim for stay of encashment of BGs to the ground of fraud, it was also contended that the ground of special equities is made out, inasmuch as once the BGs are encashed, the appellant would be barred from bidding for any World Bank contract, causing irreparable injury to the appellant. Reliance was placed on judgment dated 26th July, 2007 of the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) No.77/2006 titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jai Prakash Hyundai Consortium 2006 SCC OnLine Del 339 [Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) No.5456/2006 whereagainst was dismissed on 3rd April, 2006], judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. 2006 SCC OnLine Del 56 and judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9097.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 4 - J Singh - Full Document
1