Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.84 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 1996
Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt Ltd. ... vs The Post Graduate Institute Of Medical ... on 17 September, 2019
53. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Medipol
Pharmaceutical India Private Limited vs. Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Education and Research and Another (supra). However, the said
judgment is not applicable to the facts in hand since it had set aside the
debarment on finding that the lab testing had not been done correctly. In
the present case, the stay of debarment has been sought at the initial stage
which is not tenable in the given circumstances.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
17. The main grounds of challenge are that the learned sole Arbitrator
has failed to appreciate the specific terms of the Contract between the
parties and has failed to consider the documents produced by the
appellant. An observation has been made that the guidelines, showing the
debarment can be for not more than two years, has not been placed on
record when in fact the entire guidelines along with the judgements had
been filed before the learned Arbitrator. It is further submitted that the
appellant had relied upon the judgements namely Eurasian Equipment
ARB. A (COMM) 64/2022 Page 8 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:28.04.2023
16:24:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2023:DHC:2875
and Chemicals Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1975) 1
SCC 70, Ace Integrated Solutions Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and
Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8422, Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and
Ors.(2021) 11 SCC 339, Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2012)
11 SCC 257, BSN Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006)
11 SCC 548, Joseph Vilangandan Vs. Executive Engineer (1978) 3 SCC
36, Radhakrishna Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar (1977) 3 SCC 457, E.P
Royappa Vs. State of TN (1974) 4 SCC 3, Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722, Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International
Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, Dwarkadas Marfatia and
Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 293,
wherein it was observed that the blacklisting visits a person with a „civil
consequence‟ in as much as it casts a slur, attaches a stigma and creates a
barrier between the blacklisted person and state entities in matters of
commercial transactions and the fundamentals of fair play requires that a
person should be afforded an opportunity to represent his case before
being put on a blacklist at the hands of a state entity. The Blacklisting has
an effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of
entering into lawful relationship with the Government for the purpose of
gains and creates a disability and thus such orders must confirm to the
fundamentals of fair play and an opportunity to represent the case must be
given to the appellant before he is blacklisted.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
17. The main grounds of challenge are that the learned sole Arbitrator
has failed to appreciate the specific terms of the Contract between the
parties and has failed to consider the documents produced by the
appellant. An observation has been made that the guidelines, showing the
debarment can be for not more than two years, has not been placed on
record when in fact the entire guidelines along with the judgements had
been filed before the learned Arbitrator. It is further submitted that the
appellant had relied upon the judgements namely Eurasian Equipment
ARB. A (COMM) 64/2022 Page 8 of 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SAHIL SHARMA
Signing Date:28.04.2023
16:24:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: 2023:DHC:2875
and Chemicals Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1975) 1
SCC 70, Ace Integrated Solutions Ltd. vs. Food Corporation of India and
Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8422, Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and
Ors.(2021) 11 SCC 339, Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2012)
11 SCC 257, BSN Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006)
11 SCC 548, Joseph Vilangandan Vs. Executive Engineer (1978) 3 SCC
36, Radhakrishna Agarwal Vs. State of Bihar (1977) 3 SCC 457, E.P
Royappa Vs. State of TN (1974) 4 SCC 3, Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722, Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International
Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, Dwarkadas Marfatia and
Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 293,
wherein it was observed that the blacklisting visits a person with a „civil
consequence‟ in as much as it casts a slur, attaches a stigma and creates a
barrier between the blacklisted person and state entities in matters of
commercial transactions and the fundamentals of fair play requires that a
person should be afforded an opportunity to represent his case before
being put on a blacklist at the hands of a state entity. The Blacklisting has
an effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of
entering into lawful relationship with the Government for the purpose of
gains and creates a disability and thus such orders must confirm to the
fundamentals of fair play and an opportunity to represent the case must be
given to the appellant before he is blacklisted.