Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.81 seconds)Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Itd Cementation India Ltd on 24 April, 2015
He has also cited another decision in the case of
National Highway Authority of India Vs. I.T.D
Cementation India Ltd, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 21,
which also speaks about when award can be set aside and if
27
Com.A.S.154/2017
Arbitrator has not adhered to terms of contract, in a reasonable
manner, award cannot be set aside. The Court can interfere
only in case of perverse interpretation, that is only if Arbitrator
construe the contract in such a way that no fair-minded or
reasonable person could do. Further, Court does not sit in
appeal to appreciate the findings and decision of the Arbitrator.
Now, we have to see, whether learned Arbitrator has exceeded
his jurisdiction and gone against the terms of the contract.
When we peruse the lease deed, it goes to show that the
plaintiff herein has agreed to pay rent at two different rates,
one for moratorium period and one after completion of
moratorium period. If plaintiff was not able to complete the
construction after grant of two moratorium periods i.e., for four
years, who is responsible for that. It is the plaintiff only
responsible for the delay in construction and completion of the
work and commencement of the business. Ofcourse, the
plaintiff must have suffered loss on account of delay for which
the lessor/defendant cannot be penalized. The parties are
bound by the terms of the contract, which stipulates the
payment of rent, which is very clear on the basis of the lease
deed, then there is no bar for passing the interim award to pay
the admitted rent. There may be several other aspects
28
Com.A.S.154/2017
regarding damages etc., which require evidence and rightly
learned Arbitrator based upon other aspects and directed the
plaintiff to pay admitted rent.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs M/S Dewan Chand Ram Saran on 25 April, 2012
Therefore, the case of the
plaintiff does not fall within the Section 34 of the Act
regarding contract, how contract has to be constituted, how
the formalities are to be done, has been stated in the case of
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Vs. Dewan Chand Ram
Saran, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 306, which speaks about a
particular clause, i.e., clause No.9.3, which refers to the
liabilities of the respondent contractor in connection with
discharge of his obligations. The term "his obligations under this
order" in clause 9.3 of the contract denoted the contractor's
responsibilities under clause 6 in relation to the work, which he
has required to carry out as handling contractor. The tax
liability will depend upon the value of the taxable service
provided, which will vary depending upon the volume of the
goods handled. It is further held that the contract read as a
whole harmonising the various provisions thereof, clause
No.9.3 will have to be held as containing the stipulation of the
respondent, contractor accepting the liability to pay the service
tax, since the liability did arise out of the discharge of his
obligations under the contract. It appears that the rationale
29
Com.A.S.154/2017
behind clause 9.3 was that the petitioner as a public sector
undertaking should be thereby exposed only to a known and
determined liability under the contract, and all other risks
regarding taxes arising out of the obligation of the contractor
are assumed by the contractor. So, when the parties are
bounded to the terms of the contract, neither of them cannot
plead contrary to that. No doubt, the plaintiff had to get the
property free from encumbrances or any litigations or No
Objection from BBMP. Therefore, the burden cannot be
shifted on the lessor to claim any compensation or exemption.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
He has cited one more decision in the case of McDermott
International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Company Limited
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181, which speaks about role of
Court and grounds for interference under Section 34 of the
Act.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
Even, if there is any error committed by learned
Arbitrator by interpreting the terms of the contract, this Court
cannot substitute its view as held in the case of ONGC Ltd Vs.
Saw Pipes Ltd., and Rajasthan State Mine and Minerals
Ltd., Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and another
and earlier decision in the case of Renusagar Power Co.Ltd.,
Vs. General Electrical Company. This decision at para No. 52
states that :
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
Even, if there is any error committed by learned
Arbitrator by interpreting the terms of the contract, this Court
cannot substitute its view as held in the case of ONGC Ltd Vs.
Saw Pipes Ltd., and Rajasthan State Mine and Minerals
Ltd., Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and another
and earlier decision in the case of Renusagar Power Co.Ltd.,
Vs. General Electrical Company. This decision at para No. 52
states that :
Central Inland Water ... vs Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr on 6 April, 1986
This Court therein referred to an earlier
decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport
Corpn. Ltd., Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, wherein the
applicability of the expression "public policy" on the
touchstone of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India came to be
considered. This Court therein was dealing with
unequal. Any term of the agreement which is patently
arbitrary and/or otherwise arrived at because of the
unequal bargaining power would not only be ultra vires
Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also hit by
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, In ONGC this
Court, apart from the three grounds stated in
Renusagar, added another ground thereto for exercise
of the court's jurisdiction in setting aside the award if it
is patently arbitrary.