Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
State Of Maharashtra vs M/S Hindustan Construction Co.Ltd on 1 April, 2010
70) The Arbitral Tribunal has awarded costs of arbitration
of Rs. 1.60 crores in favour of the Respondent. It must be
observed here that no specific ground of challenge is raised in the
Petition with regard to direction for costs. However, during the
course of submissions, some comments have been made on behalf
of the Petitioner about the quantum of the costs awarded by the
Tribunal. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Hindustan Construction Company19 and State of Chhattisgarh
Vs. Sal Udyog20 and by this Court in Ravi Raghunath Khanjode
Vs. Harsiddh Corporation21, the Court exercising powers under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act can suo moto interfere with any
direction in the Award, in absence of a pleaded ground, on
account of use of the words 'if court finds that' in Section 34(2)
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Sal Udyog(P) Ltd on 8 November, 2021
70) The Arbitral Tribunal has awarded costs of arbitration
of Rs. 1.60 crores in favour of the Respondent. It must be
observed here that no specific ground of challenge is raised in the
Petition with regard to direction for costs. However, during the
course of submissions, some comments have been made on behalf
of the Petitioner about the quantum of the costs awarded by the
Tribunal. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Hindustan Construction Company19 and State of Chhattisgarh
Vs. Sal Udyog20 and by this Court in Ravi Raghunath Khanjode
Vs. Harsiddh Corporation21, the Court exercising powers under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act can suo moto interfere with any
direction in the Award, in absence of a pleaded ground, on
account of use of the words 'if court finds that' in Section 34(2)
Union Of India vs Manraj Enterprises on 18 November, 2021
Therefore, reliance of the Petitioner on judgment in IOCL vs.
Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar (supra) and UOI vs.
Manraj Enterprises (supra) is inapposite. I have already
observed that the Petitioner did not raise the issue of part
repudiation of the contract before the Arbitral Tribunal and
instead drove it in the direction of breach of contractual
obligations on account of non-decantation. The argument of
'composite contract' was argued in that fashion before the
Arbitral Tribunal.
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Gayatri Balasamy vs M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited on 19 October, 2023
In that view of the matter, reliance by the
Petitioner on judgment of the Apex Court in Alopi Parishad and
Sons Limited (supra) in support of the contention of need for
performance of contract in entirety is inapposite.
Ravi Raghunath Khanjode And 23 Ors vs Harasiddh Corporation on 29 September, 2023
70) The Arbitral Tribunal has awarded costs of arbitration
of Rs. 1.60 crores in favour of the Respondent. It must be
observed here that no specific ground of challenge is raised in the
Petition with regard to direction for costs. However, during the
course of submissions, some comments have been made on behalf
of the Petitioner about the quantum of the costs awarded by the
Tribunal. As held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Hindustan Construction Company19 and State of Chhattisgarh
Vs. Sal Udyog20 and by this Court in Ravi Raghunath Khanjode
Vs. Harsiddh Corporation21, the Court exercising powers under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act can suo moto interfere with any
direction in the Award, in absence of a pleaded ground, on
account of use of the words 'if court finds that' in Section 34(2)
1