Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.81 seconds)Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
41. What is important to note is that a decision which is
perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate
Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 :
Section 43 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. on 18 February, 2019
3. Petitioner, who has opted to address arguments in
person, has forcefully argued that Ld. Arbitrator has committed a
patent illegality by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is
argued that once the respondent no.2 was professionally engaged
by respondent no.1 for all practical purposes "he was retained as
a legal practitioner" on behalf of respondent no.1 and thus, the
statutory bar u/s 43 (1) (i) of MCS Act was squarely applicable in
the case at hand. It is submitted that Ld. Arbitrator has
committed patent illegality by ignoring the specific statutory
mandate provided under Section 43 (1) (i) of MCS Act.
Petitioner places strong reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter on MMTC Limited Vs. Vedanta
Limited, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 163.
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 9 September, 2021
7. Before adverting to the rival claims of the parties,
this Court deems it appropriate to remind itself of the scope of
powers U/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. It has been held in Delhi
Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 5627 of 2021, Arising out of
SLP (C) no. 4115 of 2019 decided on 09.09.2021 as under:
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs M/S Dewan Chand Ram Saran on 25 April, 2012
"...22. 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. 1,
Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K.
Shah v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. and
Another2 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram
Saran3 ).
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
The relevant passages of
the judgment in Ssangyong (supra) are noted as under:-