Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
National Building Construction ... vs Kiri Associates Pvt. Ltd. on 20 November, 2014 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr on 17 September, 1987

5.7 The submission of Mr. Dass that there is nothing placed on record with regard to the said staff and Engineers being positioned at site, in my view, in such like cases, the arbitrator has to go by his experience. The arbitrator in this case is a qualified Civil engineer and is a retired Director General of CPWD. The observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 497 being apposite are extracted hereinafter :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 291 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwalla vs Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd. on 19 January, 1950

"....5. It is familiar learning but requires emphasis that section 1 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in its rigour is not intended to apply to proceedings before an arbitrator. P.B. Mukharji, J. as the learned Chief Justice then was, expressed the above view in Haji Ebrahim Kassam Cochinwall v. Nothern Indian oil Industries Ltd., A.I.R. 1951 Calcutta 230 and we are of the OMP 385/2009 Page 7 of 11 opinion that this represents the correct statement of law on this aspect.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

M/S.Sayeed Ahmed & Co vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 9 July, 2009

7.1 A perusal of the clause would show that there is a prohibition on award of interest. This aspect of the matter is covered by the judgment in NBCC's own case to which reference has been hereinabove. 7.2 Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Sayeed Ahmed and Co. Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (12) SCC 26 and Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palghat and Ors., 2010 (8) SCC 767 has enunciated the principle that where contracts prohibit grant of interest, the arbitrator cannot grant interest in exercise of power contained under Section 31 (7) (a) of the contract. A bare reading of the Section would show that the arbitrator can award interest from the date of cause of action till the date of the award, only if, parties do not agree to the contrary. In this case, provisions of the contract show that the parties have agreed to the contrary. Since there is a prohibition on grant of interest, obviously no compound interest could not have been granted. In any case, the arbitrator has no power under Section 31(7) of the Act to grant compound interest. If compounding of interest is to be ordered by the arbitrator such power should be embedded in the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 113 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1