Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagbir Singh Sharma And Anr. on 17 January, 2012 cites

State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009

As regards the award of interest, although in State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 1 it was held that in matters governed by the old Act, interest at the rate of 18% per annum would constitute an error apparent on the face of the Award, in the present case, the Award is under the 1996 Act O.M.P. No. 399 of 2006 Page 8 of 10 and Section 31(7)(b) itself envisages no restriction on the rate of interest being awarded by the Arbitrator pendente lite. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the findings of the learned Arbitrator have been based on site visits undertaken of the roads identified on the layout plan and physically determining that work was executed on different roads by the Respondent. It is not possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion on the evidence. A reading of the impugned Award reveals that the learned Arbitrator has analyzed the facts in sufficient detail and come to a definite conclusion based on the evidence placed on record. The Award is also based on personal observations of the learned Arbitrator during his site visits. In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that learned Arbitrator overlooked the objections of the MCD.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 262 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

M.C.D. vs Sh. Jagbir Singh Sharma And Anr. on 17 September, 2007

12. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1, on the other hand, pointed out O.M.P. No. 399 of 2006 Page 7 of 10 that findings of the learned Arbitrator were purely factual. This Court was not expected to re-appreciate the evidence. The finding was further that roads 19 to 21 were part of roads 1 to 18. As regards the delay in Respondent No.1 starting the work, it is submitted that extensions were granted by the MCD itself as it was realized that the materials in the form of concrete, cement, etc. were not issued in time to Respondent No.1 by the MCD. It was further submitted that between the same parties, with regard to another set of roads, the award was upheld by this Court by order dated 17th September, 2007 in OMP No.160 of 2007 titled as MCD v. Jagbir Singh Sharma.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - S N Aggarwal - Full Document
1