Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.65 seconds)
Delhi State Industrial And ... vs M/S. H.R. Builders on 3 June, 2022 cites

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003

16. The award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal was illegal and in breach of fundamental policy of Indian Law as explained in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw-Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705. It was thus submitted that the arbitral Award dated 13th April, 2018 passed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (Comm.)77/2022 Page 7 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:03.06.2022 16:54:51 learned Sole Arbitrator and Order dated 11th August, 2021 of learned Single Judge dismissing the objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 1413 - Full Document

Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020

In Vidya Drolia (supra) a reference has been made to the dictum of Constitutional Bench Judgment in SBP & Company Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618 and it was held that an application under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 need not set out in detail the disputes or the claims and may briefly refer to the subject matter or broad contours of the dispute. However when judicial proceedings are initiated and are pending, specific details of the claims and disputes are normally pleaded and, therefore, the court or the judicial authority has the advantage of these details. There is a difference between a non-arbitrable claim and a non-arbitrable Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (Comm.)77/2022 Page 9 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:03.06.2022 16:54:51 subject matter. Former may arise on account of scope of arbitration agreement and also when the claim is not capable of being resolved through arbitration. General non-arbitrability of the subject matter would relate to non-arbitrability in law. Exclusion or non-arbitability when clearly expressed would pose no difficulty. However, exclusion or non-arbitability of subjects or disputes from the purview of a private forum like arbitration by necessary implication requires setting out of the principles that should be applied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 615 - S Khanna - Full Document

M/S.J.G.Engineers Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 April, 2011

In J.G. Enginners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr. (2011) 5 SCC 758 similar clause as under consideration in the present case, was examined and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the specified Authority on the question whether the contractor is responsible for delay is not final and binding, but the decision of the specified Authority on the consequential issue of quantification of compensation is final. It was, thus, held that the question of determination of delay is an arbitrable dispute to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. The relevant paragraph of the judgement reads as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 265 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

M/S. Mitra Guha Builders (India) ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited on 8 November, 2019

In M/s Mitra Guha India (Co.) (supra) similar clause empowering the Superintending Engineer to decide on the contract value for the whole week where the work remained un-commenced and un-finished was considered. The said clause also provided the milestones of the work to be followed and provided the portion of the work to be completed in case the time allowed for completing the work exceeded one month. The Supreme Court found that the relevant clause provided a complete mechanism for determination of liability as well as the quantum and held that the same was beyond the scope of arbitration clause in that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 26 - R Banumathi - Full Document

M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019

37. The scope of interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is extremely limited to when an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, which includes cases of fraud, breach of fundamental policy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (Comm.)77/2022 Page 16 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:03.06.2022 16:54:51 of Indian law and breach of public morality or is patently illegal as held by the Apex Court in its decision in McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181 and Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. Cromption Greaves Ltd. (2019) 20 SCC 1 and again reiterated in the recent decision of National Highway Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 268 - N V Ramana - Full Document

The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021

37. The scope of interference under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act, 1996 is extremely limited to when an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, which includes cases of fraud, breach of fundamental policy Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) (Comm.)77/2022 Page 16 By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:03.06.2022 16:54:51 of Indian law and breach of public morality or is patently illegal as held by the Apex Court in its decision in McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 181 and Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. Cromption Greaves Ltd. (2019) 20 SCC 1 and again reiterated in the recent decision of National Highway Authority of India vs. M. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 72 - Cited by 299 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 Next