Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.39 seconds)
Ongc Petro Additions Limited vs Tecnimont Spa & Anr. on 22 December, 2023 cites

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

In Associate Builders (supra), this Court had explained that an award would offend the notions of justice if it shocks the conscience of the Court. The decision to deny liquidated damages on the ground that the delay in completing the works would not be critical as OPaL was not prepared Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) No.424/2020 Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT Page 49 of 51 RAWAL Signing Date:30.12.2023 for the next stage, clearly does not offend the most basic notions of justice or morality. It does not shock the conscience of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Campos Brothers Farms vs Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Limited & ... on 2 May, 2019

60. Mr Nakul Dewan also referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority: (2015) 3 SCC 49; Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. N.H.A.I.: (2019) 15 SCC 131; Vijay Karia & Ors. v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L. and Ors.: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 177 as well as the decision of this Court in Campos Brothers Farms v. Matru Bhumi Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd & Ors.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8350, in support of his contention that the grounds of challenge raised by OPaL were within the scope of Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and Section 34(2)(b) of the A&C Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - N Chawla - Full Document

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

In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.: (2006) 11 SCC 181, the Supreme Court had authoritatively held that "the construction of a contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator having regard to the wide nature, scope and the ambit of the arbitration agreement ...... Interpretation of a contract is a matter for the arbitrator to determine, even if it gives a rise to determination of a question of law". The Supreme Court had further held that the arbitrator has jurisdiction, the Court would not interfere with it until it is found that there exists any bar.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Msk Projects (I)(Jv) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 21 July, 2011

In M.S.K. Projects IJV Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan: (2011) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme Court had further explained that if an arbitrator commits an error in construction of a contract, that is an error within its jurisdiction . Thus, unless the grounds as set out in Section 34(2) of the A&C Act are established, the courts will not interfere even if the arbitrator commits an error as the same is within the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 191 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next