Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.57 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Excise Act, 2009
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 65 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
8. This court does not discern any error or infirmity in the approach of
the learned single judge. The parameters of review under Section 34 of the
FAO (OS) 120/12, C.M. APPL.4896/12 & 4897/12 Page 7
Act - despite the seemingly wide interpretation of the term "contrary to
public policy" in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. SAW Pipes Ltd., AIR
2003 SC 2629, are restricted and narrow. The courts will be slow in
interfering with an award, unless it discloses manifest disregard of the law.
As far as the interpretation of Clause 13.5 of the ITB and Clause 70.5 of the
COPA is concerned, there is no factual dispute that the deemed duty
concession or facility was withdrawn with effect from 1-4-2001, much after
the bid was submitted and even accepted. Therefore, the respondent relied
on Clause 70.8 of the COPA.