Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.37 seconds)Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
45. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that we are dealing
with a case where the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act
was filed after the 2015 Amendment, therefore the newly
substituted/added Explanations would apply [SsangyongEngg. &
Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131].
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
72. The tests laid down in Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3
SCC 49 to determine perversity were followed in SsangyongEngg.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.Ltd vs Western Geco International Ltd on 4 September, 2014
69. Perversity as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award was
recognised in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd.,
(2014) 9 SCC 263. Therein it was observed that an arbitral
decision must not be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable
person would have arrived at the same. It was observed that if an
award is perverse, it would be against the public policy of India.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
51. As discussed above, till the 2015 Amendment the expression
"in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law" was
not found in the 1996 Act. Yet, in Renusagar Power Co.
Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644, in the
context of enforcement of a foreign award, while construing the
phrase "contrary to the public policy", this Court held that for a
foreign award to be contrary to public policy mere contravention of
law would not be enough rather it should be contrary to:
Section 81 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 75 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705, while
dealing with the phrase "public policy of India" as used in Section
34, this Court took the view that the concept of public policy
connotes some matter which concerns public good and public
interest. If the award, on the face of it, patently violates statutory
provisions, it cannot be said to be in public interest. Thus, an award
could also be set aside if it is patently illegal. It was, however,
clarified that illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the
illegality is of trivial nature, it cannot be held that award is against
public policy.
South East Asia Marine Engineering And ... vs Oil India Limited on 11 May, 2020
77. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent would then advert to
the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the decision in SEAMEC
Limited (supra), and would submit that the same is wholly
distinguishable on facts as well as the nature of the clause under
consideration therein.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
84. An Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms
of the contract. In a case where an Arbitral Tribunal passes an
award against the terms of the contract, the award would be
patently illegal. However, an Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to
interpret a contract having regard to terms and conditions of the
contract, conduct of the parties including correspondences
exchanged, circumstances of the case and pleadings of the parties.
If the conclusion of the arbitrator is based on a possible view of the
matter, the Court should not interfere [See: SAIL v. Gupta Brother
Steel Tubes Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 63; Pure Helium India (P)
Ltd. v. ONGC, (2003) 8 SCC 593; McDermott International
Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181; MMTC
Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163].