Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
"87. As such, as held by this Court in Ssangyong
Engineering and Construction Company Limited
(supra), the fundamental principle of justice has been
breached, namely, that a unilateral addition or
alteration of a contract has been foisted upon an
unwilling party. This Court has further held that a
party to the Agreement cannot be made liable to
perform something for which it has not entered into a
contract. In our view, re-writing a contract for the
parties would be breach of fundamental principles of
justice entitling a Court to interfere since such case
would be one which shocks the conscience of the
Court and as such, would fall in the exceptional
category."
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 75 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Gupta vs Ram Avtar on 19 May, 2022
3.12 Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgments in
cases of Rajesh Gupta vs. Ram Avtar, 2022 SCC Online Del
1482 ; Welspun Speciality Solutions Ltd. vs. ONGC & ONGC vs.
Remi Metal Gujarat Limited, (2022) 2 SCC 382 and Associate
Builders vs. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd vs The Workmen & Ors on 16 August, 1971
2025.03.03
17:29:23 +0530
OMP (Comm) 107/2022 N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurmon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 33
certificate and final certificate as envisaged in clause 1(p)
and 1(q) of the General Conditions. It was necessary for
the petitioner to file these documents before claiming the
final bill. The Ld. Arbitrator has elaborately discussed the
legal aspect that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
substantiate its claim of having the work done. Ld.
Arbitrator relied upon the decided case of Bareilly
Electricity Supply Company Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors.,
AIR 1972 SC 3300.
Satyanarayana Construction Company vs Union Of India . on 27 February, 2014
In Satyanarayana Construction Company v. Union of
India and Others, a Bench of this Court of coordinate
strength held that once a rate had been fixed in a contract, it
was not open to the Arbitrator to rewrite the terms of the
contract and award a higher rate. Where an Arbitrator had in
effect rewritten the contract and awarded a rate, higher than
that agreed in the contract, the High Court was held not to
commit any error in setting aside the award."
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
22. It will be useful to refer here to the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in McDermott International Inc. vs. Burl Standard Co.
Ltd. and Ors., 2006 (11) SCC 181, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the conduct of the parties would also be a
relevant fact in a matter of construction of the contract and the
correspondences exchanged by the parties are required to be taken
into consideration for the purpose of construction of a contract.
The relevant para of said judgment is reproduced as under :-
Pure Helium India Pvt. Ltd vs Oil & Natural Gas Commission on 9 October, 2003
"112 It is trite that the terms of the contract can be
express or implied. The conduct of the parties would
also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of
a contract. The construction of the contract agreement,
is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having
regard to the wide nature, scope and ambit of the Digitally signed
VINEETA by VINEETA
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2025.03.03
17:31:23 +0530
OMP (Comm) 107/2022 N.S. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurmon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Page 28 of 33
arbitration agreement and they cannot, be said to have
misdirected themselves in passing the award by taking
into consideration the conduct of the parties. It is also
trite that correspondences exchanged by the parties are
required to be taken into consideration for the purpose
of construction of a contract. Interpretation of a
contract is a matter for the arbitrator to determine, even
if it gives rise to determination of a question of law.
[See Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas
Commission, (2003) 8 SCC 593 and D.D. Sharma v.
Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 325]."