Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.92 seconds)Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
6.Mr.Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan, Barrister-at-law appearing for
Mr.S.Arjun Suresh, learned counsel for M/s.Dua Associates submitted that in
terms of MOA the maximum limit payable as compensation has been fixed as
Rs.25,10,000/- in Clause 17(a) and the award of the Tribunal cannot exceed
this amount fixed. In this regard, the learned counsel refer to Section 74 of
the Contract Act. Further, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
[(2015) 3 SCC 49], it is submitted that the Tribunal shall decide the dispute in
terms of the contract and the Tribunal having failed to take into consideration
Clause 17(a) of the MOA, the award is liable to be set aside as they are in
contravention of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Further, it is submitted that
the Tribunal has extensively relied upon the affidavit filed by the District
Forest officer before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in an application filed
by the Director of the appellant in his individual capacity and that could not
have been marked as a document by the Tribunal, that too without affording
an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the deponent of the affidavit,
namely, the District Forest Officer. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal
violated the procedure which was agreed to between the parties as recorded in
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
paragraph 20 of the award. In this regard, the learned counsel had elaborately
referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the award to impress upon
this Court that the Tribunal had extensively relied upon the affidavit filed by
the District Forest Officer before the NGT. Thus, the endeavour of the learned
Senior Counsel is to bring the challenge to the impugned award within the
ambit of Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.
1