Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Board Of Control For Cricket In India vs Deccan Chronicle Holding Limited on 16 June, 2021
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a counter claim
in the sum of Rs.7.5 crores was also passed in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel on instructions submits that he is challenging the
finding of the learned arbitrator regarding grant of Rs.15.9 Crores on
account of mesne profit for withholding the possession for the period
from 01.07.2019 to 30.11.2023 @ Rs.30 lakhs per month. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator has
mentioned that no evidence has been led in this behalf by either of the
parties and therefore the learned arbitral tribunal has wrongly resorted
to guess work for reaching the figure of Rs.30 lakhs per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therefore the award to
this extent is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his contention has relied upon Board of Control for Cricket
in India vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom
834, National Radio & Electronic Co.Ltd.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs.
Saw Pipes Limited 2003 SCC online SC 545, it was inter alia held that
the award would be set aside if it is in contrast to the (a) fundamental
policy of Indian law, or (b) the interest of India: or (c) justice or
This is a digitally signed order.
Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963
It is apparent
from the aforesaid reasoning recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal
that it failed to consider Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract
Act and the ratio laid down in Fateh Chand case [Fateh Chand v.
Balkishan Dass, AIR 1963 SC 1405 : (1964) 1 SCR 515] wherein
it is specifically held that jurisdiction of the court to award
compensation in case of breach of contract is unqualified except
This is a digitally signed order.
Edifice Developers And Project ... vs M/S. Essar Projects (India) Ltd on 3 January, 2013
In Edifice Developers & Project Engineers Ltd. v. Essar Projects
(India) Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 5, the Division Bench of Bombay
High Court was considering an appeal against the order of learned
Single Judge. Learned Single Judge while deciding the challenge
against the arbitral award, affirmed the award of Arbitral Tribunal in so
far as it allowed the claim in respect of the retention money in the
amount of Rs.1,01,43,000/- holding that the claim arose out of the
contract and the conclusion which was arrived at by the learned
arbitrator was a possible conclusion to be drawn on the basis of the
material. Learned Single Judge while considering the challenge against
the arbitral award besides affirming the award under the head of claim
in respect of retention money, set aside the arbitral award in respect of
remaining claims. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant claimed
This is a digitally signed order.
A.T. Brij Paul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 1984
"10. Brij Paul Singh's case therefore does not stipulate as a
doctrine of law that the formula which has been prescribed in
Hudson's treatise must invariably be accepted in all cases as a
measure of damages sustained on account of loss of overheads.
M.N. Gangappa (Dead) By Lrs. vs Atmakur Nagabhushanam Setty & Co. And ... on 21 January, 1972
On the other hand in the subsequent decision of the Supreme
Court in McDermott International (supra), the Supreme Court
has relied upon the following observations contained in the
earlier decision in M.N. Gangappa v. Atmakur Nagabhushanam
Setty & Co.3.