Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Indowind Energy Ltd vs Wescare (I) Ltd.& Anr on 27 April, 2010
Relying on the
decision in Indowind Energy Ltd. v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC
306, Mr. Nath submitted that merely because two companies have common
shareholders or common Board of Directors, would not make them a single
entity. He submitted that the fact that JIL and IPWC had merged with
Jagson India did not make them the same entity. They continued to remain
distinct entities. JIL could not be made liable for the acts of IPWC or JAL
and vice-versa.
New Delhi Apartment Group Housing ... vs Jyoti Swaroop Mittal on 30 November, 2007
38. On the question of costs, Mr. Nath referred to the documents submitted
by Bannari without bills or invoices in support of the claim for exorbitant
costs. The claim included costs of the proceedings in the Delhi High Court
and Madras High Court which amounts could not have been claimed before
the learned Arbitrator. He accordingly submitted that the award of costs of
approximately Rs.25 lakhs was perverse and patently illegal. Lastly, it was
submitted that the award of interest @ 18% per annum was exorbitant and
not justified. Mr. Nath also relied on the decisions in New Delhi Apartment
O.M.P. Nos.478 & 482 of 2006 Page 22 of 32
Group Housing Society v. Jyoti Swaroop Mittal (2008) 100 DRJ 439
(DB), Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 144,
Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi v. Mayawati 183 (2011) DLT 617
(DB), MSK Projects India (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 10 SCC
573, Veena Jain v. Sunil Sood 192 (2012) DLT 221 and Mellcon
Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhushan Steel & Strip Ltd. (2010) II AD (Delhi)
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs Ms.Mayawati on 3 August, 2011
38. On the question of costs, Mr. Nath referred to the documents submitted
by Bannari without bills or invoices in support of the claim for exorbitant
costs. The claim included costs of the proceedings in the Delhi High Court
and Madras High Court which amounts could not have been claimed before
the learned Arbitrator. He accordingly submitted that the award of costs of
approximately Rs.25 lakhs was perverse and patently illegal. Lastly, it was
submitted that the award of interest @ 18% per annum was exorbitant and
not justified. Mr. Nath also relied on the decisions in New Delhi Apartment
O.M.P. Nos.478 & 482 of 2006 Page 22 of 32
Group Housing Society v. Jyoti Swaroop Mittal (2008) 100 DRJ 439
(DB), Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 144,
Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi v. Mayawati 183 (2011) DLT 617
(DB), MSK Projects India (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 10 SCC
573, Veena Jain v. Sunil Sood 192 (2012) DLT 221 and Mellcon
Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhushan Steel & Strip Ltd. (2010) II AD (Delhi)
Mrs Veena Jain vs Sunil Sood on 23 July, 2012
38. On the question of costs, Mr. Nath referred to the documents submitted
by Bannari without bills or invoices in support of the claim for exorbitant
costs. The claim included costs of the proceedings in the Delhi High Court
and Madras High Court which amounts could not have been claimed before
the learned Arbitrator. He accordingly submitted that the award of costs of
approximately Rs.25 lakhs was perverse and patently illegal. Lastly, it was
submitted that the award of interest @ 18% per annum was exorbitant and
not justified. Mr. Nath also relied on the decisions in New Delhi Apartment
O.M.P. Nos.478 & 482 of 2006 Page 22 of 32
Group Housing Society v. Jyoti Swaroop Mittal (2008) 100 DRJ 439
(DB), Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 144,
Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi v. Mayawati 183 (2011) DLT 617
(DB), MSK Projects India (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 10 SCC
573, Veena Jain v. Sunil Sood 192 (2012) DLT 221 and Mellcon
Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhushan Steel & Strip Ltd. (2010) II AD (Delhi)
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs M/S. S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. &Anr on 14 May, 2008
48. The criticism on behalf of JAL that there is no discussion in the
impugned Award as to how it could be held liable is also without
justification. The impugned Award contains a detailed discussion on the
basis of which the learned Arbitrator has held JAL to be liable. There is
also no merit in the contention on behalf of IPWC and JAL that the order
passed by the learned Arbitrator on 2nd March 2006 rejecting the
application for amendment was erroneous. The said amendment sought to
project a new case as pointed out by the learned Arbitrator. The said
decision was consistent with the law explained by the Supreme Court in
Rajkumar Gurawara's case (supra).
State Of Haryana & Ors vs M/S S.L.Arora & Company on 29 January, 2010
On the question of claim of interest, she placed reliance on the
decisions in State of Haryana v. S.L. Arora & Co. (2010) 3 SCC 690 and
Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. (2009) 12 SCC 26 to urge that the
learned Arbitrator could not have reduced the rate of interest from 2% per
month as was agreed i.e. 24% per annum to 18% per annum. She submitted
that since counter claim of IPWC and JAL was rejected and fictitious
applications were filed repeatedly by them, the award of cost of
approximately Rs.25 lakhs was justified.
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
In regard to the application
for amendment, Mr. Nath relied on the decision in Usha Balashaheb
Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami (2007) 5 SCC 602 and submitted that the
amendment was only to bring on record certain undisputed facts which
O.M.P. Nos.478 & 482 of 2006 Page 21 of 32
would not have materially altered the case of either IPWC or JAL and
should have been allowed by the learned Arbitrator.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Salzgitter Mannesmann International ... on 18 April, 2012
Relying on the decisions in
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012) 5
SCC 306, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Salzgitter Mannesmann
International GMBH (2012) 2 Arb.LR 296 (Delhi), Ravindra Kumar
Gupta & Co. v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 409, Fiza Developers &
Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 and
Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority
of India Ltd., B.S. City, Bokaro (2001) 6 SCC 347, Ms. Malhotra
submitted that given the limited scope of interference by the Court under
Section 34 of the Act, there was no ground made out for interference with
the impugned Award.
Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008
Relying on the decisions in
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012) 5
SCC 306, Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Salzgitter Mannesmann
International GMBH (2012) 2 Arb.LR 296 (Delhi), Ravindra Kumar
Gupta & Co. v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 409, Fiza Developers &
Inter-Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. AMCI (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 17 SCC 796 and
Ispat Engineering & Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority
of India Ltd., B.S. City, Bokaro (2001) 6 SCC 347, Ms. Malhotra
submitted that given the limited scope of interference by the Court under
Section 34 of the Act, there was no ground made out for interference with
the impugned Award.