Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.07 seconds)
M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs M/S. Il&Fs Paradip Refineries Water ... on 3 May, 2023 cites

Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019

In Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), (2019) 15 SCC 131, the Supreme Court has clarified the limited extent of jurisdiction that this Court exercises in interfering with an Arbitral Award. It has inter alia held that the interpretation of the contractual term is the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court would not interfere with an Arbitral Award merely because it finds the interpretation placed by the Arbitral Tribunal to be incorrect. Difference has to be appreciated between a case where the Arbitral Tribunal acts contrary to the contractual terms and a case where the Arbitral Tribunal interprets the contractual terms, though in a manner which may be found by the Court to be such with which it may not concur. Mere error in interpretation of the Agreement will not entitle the Court to interfere with an Arbitral Award, unless such interpretation is found to be completely perverse. Applying the above test to the facts of the present case, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has interpreted various terms of the Agreement to find that it was the duty of the petitioner to obtain the necessary permissions, including permission from OFDC. Merely because the said permission was withdrawn Signature Not Verified and had to be applied afresh, the petitioner did not get Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:12.05.2023 21:41:35 OMP (COMM) Nos.110/2018 & 111/2018 Page 10 of 45 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3032 relieved of its obligation and, therefore, had to bear the expenses for obtaining the fresh NOC. I find no fault in the said interpretation to the terms of the Agreement and as applied to the facts of the case. In any case, the same cannot give a ground to the petitioner to challenge the finding of the learned Arbitral Tribunal on this account.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mohd. Salamatullah And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 January, 1977

In Mohd. Salamatullah (supra) the Court found that though there was evidence in form of deposition of PW1 before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court reduced the claim under the head of damages for breach of contract to 15% for the reasons given. The High Court, even in absence of a specific ground challenging the quantum of damages, reduced the same. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 62 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Kalyan Chand Goyal vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 November, 1998

The same position was reiterated by this Court in Kalyan Chandra Goyal (supra). Unlike the Award on Claim no.2 (de-scoping of work), for Claim no.5(ii) there was material before the learned Arbitral Tribunal to determine what it found to be a reasonable compensation for the Signature Not Verified change of scope of work for the respondent. In the limited jurisdiction Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:12.05.2023 21:41:35 OMP (COMM) Nos.110/2018 & 111/2018 Page 31 of 45 Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3032 vested in this Court under Section 34 of the Act, I find no reason to interfere with such finding of the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

A.T. Brij Paul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 1984

In A.T. Brij Paul Singh (supra), the Supreme Court took account of the fact that for the same type of work, the work site being in the vicinity of each other and for identical type of work between the same parties, a Division Bench of the same High Court had accepted 15% of the value of the balance of the works contract to be reasonable measure of damages for loss of profit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 130 - D A Desai - Full Document

M/S Good Value Engineers vs 1. M.M.S.Nanda, Sole Arbitrator, 2. ... on 7 December, 2009

53. As discussed above, in M/s Good Value Engineers (supra), this Court has held that where the learned Arbitrator resorts to honest guesswork after duly considering the various facts, evidence and circumstances, such Award cannot be interfered with. Once there is some material on record, the learned Arbitrator can arrive at a conclusion based thereon, on the quantification of the claim.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1