Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.64 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority: (2015)
3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court had authoritatively held that:
M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
In Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves
Limited: (2019) 20 SCC 1, the Supreme Court had held that the courts
would not interfere "unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the
perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there
being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the
arbitral award".
Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. vs Precision Technik Pvt. Ltd. on 18 December, 2018
32. Second, he submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had also grossly
erred in holding that liquidated damages were not a matter of right and
NVVNL was required to prove that it had suffered a loss. He
submitted that electrical power was a public utility and therefore, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed O.M.P. (COMM.) 164/ 2021 Page 10 of 18
by:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
was not necessary for NVVNL to prove the quantum of damages
suffered by it with any precision. He referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Construction and Design Services v. Delhi
Development Authority: (2015) 14 SCC 263 and the decisions of this
Court in NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited v. Saisudhir Energy
Limited: FAO (OS) 275 and 281 of 2016, decided on 18.01.2018 and
NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd v. Precision Technik Pvt. Ltd.:
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd vs Saisudhir Energy Ltd on 8 September, 2016
32. Second, he submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had also grossly
erred in holding that liquidated damages were not a matter of right and
NVVNL was required to prove that it had suffered a loss. He
submitted that electrical power was a public utility and therefore, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed O.M.P. (COMM.) 164/ 2021 Page 10 of 18
by:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
was not necessary for NVVNL to prove the quantum of damages
suffered by it with any precision. He referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Construction and Design Services v. Delhi
Development Authority: (2015) 14 SCC 263 and the decisions of this
Court in NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited v. Saisudhir Energy
Limited: FAO (OS) 275 and 281 of 2016, decided on 18.01.2018 and
NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd v. Precision Technik Pvt. Ltd.:
Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited vs Lexicon Vanijya Private Limited & Anr. on 2 August, 2021
48. The questions raised by NVVNL in this petition are identical to
the questions raised by NVVNL in OMP(COMM) 163/2021; NTPC
Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Limited v. Lexicon Vanijya Private Limited,
which was dismissed by this Court on 02.08.2021. The impugned
award is also similarly worded as the one impugned in that case and
the decision in that case squarely covers all contentions raised in the
present petition.
1