Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
The Chief Engineer vs M/S.Subaya Constructions Company ... on 9 January, 2026 cites

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

18. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the appellant's reliance on the judgment in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., vs. NHAI is misconceived. In the said case, the Apex Court exercised its power under Article 142 to mould the relief, however, the said power is prerogative and exclusively available only to the Apex Court and the High Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 have no such power. The appellant's argument that the awards in Sivagangai and Ramanathapuram contracts contain similar wording is equally untenable. Further, the appellant has not produced before this Court a complete set of documents and exhibits which were placed before the Arbitral Tribunal and which were formed the very basis of the impugned award. Such approach renders the appeals unsustainable. It is also submitted that though the appellant raised the plea of limitation in these appeals, neither in the pleadings nor during Page No.22 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 06:40:36 pm ) ARB.APPEAL(MD)No.2/2024 & CMA(MD)No.859/2019 oral arguments, such plea was taken. The appellant has not identified the date of accrual of cause of action, the relevant contractual milestones or the corresponding limitation period. A mere bald assertion that the claims are time barred, without pleading the necessary particulars or demonstrating any factual matrix is untenable in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 13 April, 2023

15. He would further submit that the appellant relied on the dissenting opinion of the expert contending that it represents a more reasoned and persuasive view of the arbitral record. However, such reliance is misconceived. The Apex Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., vs. NHAI (2024) 2 SCC 613 : (2024) 1 SCC (Civ) 708, has held that a dissenting opinion cannot be treated as award even if the majority Page No.18 of 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/01/2026 06:40:36 pm ) ARB.APPEAL(MD)No.2/2024 & CMA(MD)No.859/2019 award is set aside. He would further submit that though the appellant challenged the arbitral award on routine factual and contractual grounds namely, alleged delay in adjudication, variations between adjudication and arbitral claims, attribution of delay to the respondent, insufficiency of documentary evidence, irrational methodology, non-levy of LD / No financial commitment, estoppel by acceptance of final bill and use of cost index method, none of those grounds fall within the statutory parameters of Section 34. They relate purely to findings of fact and contractual interpretation which are within the exclusive domain of the arbitral Tribunal. The Court below has rightly appreciated the narrow limits of interference under Section 34 and dismissed the petition as the grounds raised by the appellant would tantamount to reviewing the case on merits. He would also contend that the appellant having participated in the appointment of the arbitrator through the institution of Engineers is deemed to have waived any procedural objections.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next