Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (4.09 seconds)
Dayanand Masur S/O Shri Basavaraj Masur vs The General Manager on 23 December, 2021 cites

Central Organisation For Railway ... vs M/S Eci Spic Smo Mcml (Jv) A Joint Venture ... on 17 December, 2019

20. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision which is also rendered by the three Judges Bench in the case of Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JC) A Joint Venture Company, reported in(2020) 14 SCC 712, has considered both TRF Ltd.,'s case and Perkins's case and has held as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 210 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Haryana Space Application Centre ... vs M/S Pan India Consultants Pvt Ltd And ... on 24 August, 2020

10. He relied upon the decision rendered by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofTRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, reported in(2017) 8 SCC 377, which has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 and also in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 755 and in Haryana Space Application Centre (HARS AC) and Another v. PAN India Consultants Private Limited, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 103.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - A R Singh - Full Document

Union Of India vs Parmar Construction Company on 29 March, 2019

28. As regards the contention of the Railways that the disputes have become non-arbitrable by reason of the fact that the petitioner has given a No claim certificate is concerned, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Parmar Constructions Company, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 682, would apply. In para 36 it has been stated as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 71 - A Rastogi - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Boghara Polyfab Pvt.Ltd on 18 September, 2008

"36. The respondents are the contractors and attached with the railway establishment in the instant batch of appeals are claiming either refund of security deposits/bank guarantee, which has been forfeited or the escalation cost has been reduced from final invoices unilaterally without tendering any justification. It is manifest from the pleadings on record that the respondent contractors who entered into contract for construction works with the railway establishment cannot afford to take any displeasure from the employer, the amount under the bills for various reasons which may include discharge of his liability towards the bank, financial institutions and other persons, indeed the railway establishment has a upper hand. A rebutable presumption could be drawn that when a no claim has been furnished in the prescribed format at the time of final bills being raised with unilateral deductions made even that acceptable amount will not be released, unless no claim certificate is being attached to the final bills. On the stated facts, para 52(iii) referred to by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (supra) indeed covers the cases of the present contractors with whom no option has been left and being in financial duress to accept the amount tendered in reference to the final bills furnished and from the discharge voucher which has been taken to be a defence by the appellants prima : 24 : facie cannot be said to be voluntary and has resulted in the discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction as claimed by the appellants. In our considered view, the arbitral dispute subsists and the contract has not been discharged as being claimed by the appellants employer(s) and all the contentions in this regard are open to be examined in the arbitral proceedings."
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 455 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Bharat Broadband Network Limited vs United Telecoms Limited on 16 April, 2019

10. He relied upon the decision rendered by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofTRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited, reported in(2017) 8 SCC 377, which has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and Another vs. HSCC (India) Ltd., reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1517 and also in Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 755 and in Haryana Space Application Centre (HARS AC) and Another v. PAN India Consultants Private Limited, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 103.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 440 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1