Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.41 seconds)
Union Of India vs Chenab Const. Joint Venture on 15 April, 2026 cites

M/S. Madnani Construction ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 December, 2009

The Ld. Arbitration Tribunal while dealing with the payment of interest has erroneously relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madnani Construction Corporation Private Ltd v. Union of India, dated 07.12.2009. However, the Ld. Tribunal has ignored the fact that the said judgement was passed, in terms of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 and overlooked the judgement dated 20.08.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siri Kamachi, Amman constructions v. Divisional Railway Manager works, Palghat and others which unambiguously bars the payment of interest, regarding the claim no.3 for interest on the machinery advance to the respondents that is refund for mobilisation interest + market interest. The mobilisation advance up to a maximum of 10% of contract value was granted to the claimant against irrevocable bank guarantee in 2 stages in terms of clause number 18 of SEC. The advance was carrying interest of 10% per annum. Similarly, machinery advance was also granted to the claimant in terms of clause 19 of SEC. And the same was also carrying the interest of 10% per annum. Both the advances had been recovered, along with interest, which is not refundable to the claimant in terms of contract clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 9 September, 2021

13. Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 deals with setting aside of an arbitral award. The scope and ambit of court's jurisdiction under section 34 has been dealt with and explained in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 131 wherein it has been held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 282 - L N Rao - Full Document

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs M/S Dewan Chand Ram Saran on 25 April, 2012

26. A cumulative reading of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Rules, the legislative intent with which the 1996 Act is made, Section 5 and Section 34 of the 1996 Act would make it clear that judicial interference with the arbitral awards is limited to the grounds in Section 34. While deciding applications filed under Section 34 of the Act, courts are mandated to strictly act in accordance with and within the confines of Section 34, refraining from appreciation or re-appreciation of matters of fact as well as law. (See: Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited. v. Northern Coal Field Limited. 2, Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and Another 3 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran 4 ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 317 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019

In Ssangyong (supra), this Court held that the meaning of the expression 'fundamental policy of Indian law' would be in accordance with the understanding of this Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. 6 In Renusagar (supra), this Court observed that violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a statute enacted for the 'national economic interest', and disregarding the superior courts in India would be antithetical to the fundamental policy of Indian law. Contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest cannot be a ground to set at naught an arbitral award as being discordant with the fundamental policy of Indian law and neither can it be brought within the confines of 'patent illegality' as discussed above. In other words, contravention of a statute only if it is linked to public policy or public interest is cause for setting aside the award as being at odds with the fundamental policy of Indian law. If an arbitral award shocks the conscience of the court, it can be set aside as being in conflict with the most basic notions of justice. The ground of morality in this context has been interpreted by this Court to encompass awards involving elements of sexual morality, such as prostitution, or awards 6 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644 seeking to validate agreements which are not illegal but would not be enforced given the prevailing mores of the day."
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next