Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Gayatri- Eci (Joint Venture), ... on 16 April, 2019
cites
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In Associate Builders (supra), the Apex Court, on the aspect of scope of
interference by Courts in a section 34 petition, held as under:
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
?B?? ?P"N? ??C=Q ?3A1W? ??? ... vs ?}????!U?{ ?? ??"~? Ta? ... on 15 July, 2008
In fact, there are several
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court which have defined that
the Courts would interfere in the arbitral awards only in a situation covered
under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act such as
Associate Builders v Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49,
WishwaMitter Bajaj v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2019) 256 DLT 42 (DB),
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
181, P.C.L Suncon (JV) v N.H.A.I., 2015 SCC Online Del 13192, P.R.
Shah Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v B.H.H. Securities Pvt Ltd.,
2012 (1) SCC 594, Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v J.M.
Combines (2015) 5 SCC 698.
P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd vs M/S. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors on 14 October, 2011
In fact, there are several
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court which have defined that
the Courts would interfere in the arbitral awards only in a situation covered
under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act such as
Associate Builders v Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49,
WishwaMitter Bajaj v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2019) 256 DLT 42 (DB),
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
181, P.C.L Suncon (JV) v N.H.A.I., 2015 SCC Online Del 13192, P.R.
Shah Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v B.H.H. Securities Pvt Ltd.,
2012 (1) SCC 594, Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v J.M.
Combines (2015) 5 SCC 698.
M/S Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd vs M/S J.M.Combines on 26 August, 2014
In fact, there are several
judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court which have defined that
the Courts would interfere in the arbitral awards only in a situation covered
under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act such as
Associate Builders v Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49,
WishwaMitter Bajaj v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2019) 256 DLT 42 (DB),
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC
181, P.C.L Suncon (JV) v N.H.A.I., 2015 SCC Online Del 13192, P.R.
Shah Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v B.H.H. Securities Pvt Ltd.,
2012 (1) SCC 594, Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v J.M.
Combines (2015) 5 SCC 698.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc vs Sbi Home Finance Ltd. & Ors on 15 April, 2011
Thus, the judgment
of the Apex Court in Booz Allen (supra) is not applicable to the present
case. Petitioner also has no convincing argument in support of the
contention that the dispute is not arbitrable on the ground of public policy.