Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)Section 54 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn
Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] )
General Manager Northern Railways & Anr vs Sarvesh Chopra on 1 March, 2002
59. This Court finds no merit in the contention that Clause 20.01.00
of the Technical Specifications is unconscionable or illegal. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed OMP(COMM) Nos.139/2021 & 171/2021 Page 29 of 33
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
Arbitral Tribunal had examined the decision in General Manager,
Northern Railways v. Sarvesh Chopra (supra) and found that the same
does not apply in the facts of this case. The Arbitral Tribunal also found
that TPL was aware of the import of the said clause as it had sought its
modification but had subsequently accepted the contractual terms. This
Court finds no fault with the view of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Section 75 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
12. It is only if one of these conditions is met
that the Court may interfere with an arbitral award in
terms of Section 34(2)(b)(ii), but such interference
does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute,
and is limited to situations where the findings of the
arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or
when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or
when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root
of the matter. An arbitral award may not be
interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is
a possible view based on facts. (See Associate
Builders v. DDA [Associate Builders v. DDA,
(2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] .
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 9 September, 2021
In a recent decision in Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 695, the
Supreme Court found flaw with the approach of the Courts to re-
examine and re-evaluate the evidence for the purposes of ascertaining
whether the impugned award was vitiated by patent illegality. It further
explained the scope of the ground of patent illegality under Section
34(2A) of the A&C Act as under:
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
In
Ssangyong (supra), this Court held that the meaning
of the expression 'fundamental policy of Indian law'
would be in accordance with the understanding of
this Court in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General
Electric Co. In Renusagar (supra), this Court
observed that violation of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973, a statute enacted for the
'national economic interest', and disregarding the
superior courts in India would be antithetical to the
fundamental policy of Indian law. Contravention of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed OMP(COMM) Nos.139/2021 & 171/2021 Page 28 of 33
By:DUSHYANT
RAWAL
a statute not linked to public policy or public interest
cannot be a ground to set at naught an arbitral award
as being discordant with the fundamental policy of
Indian law and neither can it be brought within the
confines of 'patent illegality' as discussed above. In
other words, contravention of a statute only if it is
linked to public policy or public interest is cause for
setting aside the award as being at odds with the
fundamental policy of Indian law. If an arbitral
award shocks the conscience of the court, it can be
set aside as being in conflict with the most basic
notions of justice. The ground of morality in this
context has been interpreted by this Court to
encompass awards involving elements of sexual
morality, such as prostitution, or awards seeking to
validate agreements which are not illegal but would
not be enforced given the prevailing mores of the
day.