Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.03 seconds)
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. vs Src Company Infra Private Limited on 14 November, 2025 cites

Konkan Railway Corporation Limited vs Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking on 17 August, 2023

54. The reliance placed by the Respondent-Claimant upon the judgments, namely Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Vs. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (supra), McDermott International Inc. (supra) and Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited (supra) in 35 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:47 ::: Jt-CARBP-641&646-2021.doc support of their contention that merely because the Court would have interpreted the Contract differently interference with the Award is not warranted, is misplaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - P S Narasimha - Full Document

Unio Of India vs M/S.Airwide Express Cargo on 6 April, 2015

It has also been held by this Court in Union of India Vs. Airwide Express Cargo (supra), relied upon by the Petitioner- Respondent that inter-departmental notings have no legal effect unless communicated to the other party. This Court set aside the Arbitral Award, which relied upon such uncommunicated notings, observing that internal discussions cannot alter Contract terms or bind parties unless formally conveyed.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

54. The reliance placed by the Respondent-Claimant upon the judgments, namely Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Vs. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (supra), McDermott International Inc. (supra) and Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited (supra) in 35 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:47 ::: Jt-CARBP-641&646-2021.doc support of their contention that merely because the Court would have interpreted the Contract differently interference with the Award is not warranted, is misplaced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. Bharat Enterprise on 23 March, 2023

52. Having considered the submissions, the limited issue which fell for determination before the Arbitral Tribunal was whether the royalty levied by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh towards earthwork in filing in embankment used in the said work was payable by the Petitioner-Respondent or the Respondent- Claimant. It was therefore, necessary for the Arbitral Tribunal to determine this issue in consonance with the terms of the Contract between the Petitioner-Respondent and the Respondent-Claimant. It is well settled that the Arbitral Tribunal being a creature of Contract cannot traverse beyond and is bound by the Contract. This has been held in the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner-Respondent viz. Union of India Vs. Bharat Enterprise (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

Mahadeo vs Sovan Devi on 30 August, 2022

56. The reliance placed by the majority Arbitrators on the 36 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:47 ::: Jt-CARBP-641&646-2021.doc minutes of the meeting of the Tender Committee, is misplaced. It is settled law that inter-departmental communications / file notings have no legal sanctity and/or do not create any enforceable rights. The judgment relied upon by the Petitioner-Respondent, namely Mahadeo Vs. Sovan Devi (supra) is apposite. It has been held that these inter-departmental communications are at best preparatory steps or expressions of tentative views. Unless notings culminate in a final decision, they cannot be relied upon as a basis for any legal right or liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 6 - H Gupta - Full Document

Ivory Properties And Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs Vasantben Ramniklal Bhuta And Anr on 10 July, 2023

54. The reliance placed by the Respondent-Claimant upon the judgments, namely Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Vs. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking (supra), McDermott International Inc. (supra) and Ivory Properties & Hotels Private Limited (supra) in 35 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:47 ::: Jt-CARBP-641&646-2021.doc support of their contention that merely because the Court would have interpreted the Contract differently interference with the Award is not warranted, is misplaced.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - N M Jamdar - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

63. This Court is mindful of the fact that judicial interference with Arbitral Awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is limited. However, where the Arbitral Tribunal departs from the terms of the Contract or acts beyond its jurisdiction by making a new Contract of the parties, such interference is not only be permissible but necessary. The Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority13 laid down that an Award would be liable to 13 (2015) 3 SCC 49 41 ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:50:47 ::: Jt-CARBP-641&646-2021.doc be set aside under Section 34, if it suffers from patent illegality, including contravention of substantive provisions of law; ignoring binding judicial precedents; or misconstruction of the terms of the Contract. The present case is one such case where the Award is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as it suffers from patent illegality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 Next