Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
32. Pargraphs 18 and 27 of the decision in Associate Builders v.
DDA (supra) are set out below:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
27. Coming to each of the heads contained in Saw
Pipes [(2003) 5 SCC 705 : AIR 2003 SC 2629] judgment,
we will first deal with the head ―fundamental policy of
Indian law‖. It has already been seen
from Renusagar [Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General
Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] judgment that
violation of the Foreign Exchange Act and disregarding
orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as
Signature Not Verified
digitally signed O.M.P. (COMM.) 168 of 2021 Page 16 of 19
by:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
being contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. To
this it could be added that the binding effect of the
judgment of a superior court being disregarded would be
equally violative of the fundamental policy of Indian law.‖
[ underlined for emphasis]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
Limited v. NHAI (supra), the Supreme Court had explained that the
expression ―fundamental policy of Indian law‖ would necessarily have
to be understood as explained in paragraphs 18 and 27 of its decision
in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority: (2015) 3 SCC
49 and its earlier decision in Renusagar Power Co Ltd. V. General
Electric Co: 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644. Paragraph 34, 35 and 36 of the
said decision are set out below:
Section 18 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Jitendra Kumar Khan & Ors vs Peerless Gen.Finance & ... on 6 August, 2013
34. The decision in the case of Vedanta Limited (supra) is of little
assistance to SAIL. In that case, the Court had noted that the Arbitral
Tribunal had awarded interest at the same rate on the components of
the award in Indian currency as well as in Euros. It had noted that the
parties did not operate in the same currency and it was, therefore,
necessary to take into account the complications caused by differential
rates. Undeniably, interest on amounts payable in different currencies
to parties operating in their respective currencies would necessarily
have to take into account the economic environment, which are
relevant to the currencies, in which the parties operate. It would not be
apposite to apply a uniform rate across different currency components
without an understanding of the environment in which the said
Signature Not Verified
digitally signed O.M.P. (COMM.) 168 of 2021 Page 17 of 19
by:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
currency is operated. The said decision is not an authority for the
proposition that awarding 12% compound interest with quarterly rests
on an award in US dollars, violates the fundamental policy of Indian
law.
Section 48 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Vedanta Limited vs Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power ... on 11 October, 2018
15. Third, he submitted that the award of interest at the rate of 12%
per annum compounded with quarterly rests, is excessive and
disproportionate. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Vendanta Limited v. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power
Construction Company Limited: (2019) 11 SCC 465 and on the
strength of the said decision, contended that the award of such interest
is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Lakshmichand & Balchand vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 November, 1986
In the judgement, the Supreme Court had
referred to its earlier decision in Lakshmichand and Balchand v.
State of A.P.: (1987) 1 SCC 19, wherein the Court had ruled that the
doctrine of equitable set off is applicable when all cross demands arise
out of the same transaction or that demands are so connected in nature
and circumstances that they can be looked upon as a part of one
transaction. Clearly, the said condition is not met in the present case.