Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
"36. Associated Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC
49, may justifiably be christened as the high
watermark in the law relating to Section 34 of the
Act, and any attempt to paraphrase the decision is
fraught with the risk of mutilation. The decision is,
almost entirely, definitively authoritative, and
brooks no ambiguity or anomaly.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Finolex Cables Limited on 18 September, 2017
This court had an
occasion to comment, thereon, in its judgment in Mahanagar
FAO(OS) 194/2017 Page 17 of 23
Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Finolex Cables Limited, 2017 SCC Online
Del 10497, paras 45 and 46 of which merit reproduction as under:
Mtnl vs Fujitshu India Pvt. Ltd. on 3 November, 2015
In
a pronouncement reported at MTNL v. Fujitshu India
Pvt. Ltd. (FAO(OS) No. 63/2015), the Division Bench of
this court has held that "an appeal under Section 37 is
like a second appeal, the first appeal being to the court
by way of objections under Section 34". Being in the
nature of a second appeal, this court would be hesitant to
FAO(OS) 194/2017 Page 21 of 23
interfere, with the decision of the learned Single Judge,
unless it is shown to be palpably erroneous on facts or in
law, or manifestly perverse. "
Shiam Cooperative Group vs M/S. Kamal Construction Co. Ltd on 10 August, 2017
Nonetheless, in
view of the proliferation of litigation, challenging
arbitral awards, in recent times, we have, in a
recent decision, dated 10thAugust 2017, in Shiam
Cooperative Group v. Kamal Construction Co.
Ltd., extracted, in extenso, the relevant paragraphs
from the said decision, and respectfully culled,
therefrom, the following clear principles:
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
"45. The extent of jurisdiction of the court while dealing
with the challenge to an arbitral award, by now, stands
authoritatively examined by a plethora of
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, which travel from
the judgment reported at 1994 Supp (1) SCC
644, Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Co. to (2015) 3 SCC 49, Associated Builders v. DDA.
Nhai vs M/S. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd on 11 September, 2017
On
an analysis of all the said decisions, this court has, in a
recent judgment reported at NHAI v. Hindustan
Construction Co. Ltd., delineated the following
propositions:
M/S Chennai-Ennore Port Road Co.Ltd. vs M/S Rds Project Ltd. on 15 March, 2016
13.2 Mr. Vikas Goel appearing for the appellant, sought to place
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chennai-Ennore Port Road
Co. Ltd. v. RDS Project Ltd. Having examined, minutely, the said
judgment, we find that it is clearly distinguishable, inter alia, for the
reason that the said case did not involve any change in design at all.
The learned Single Judge has also distinguished the said decision on
the same ground, and we find no reason to differ.
1