Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.79 seconds)
Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. on 18 February, 2019 cites

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

14. It is equally important to observe at this juncture that while interpreting the terms of a contract, the conduct of parties and correspondences exchanged would also be relevant factors and it is within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to consider the same. (See McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra); Pure Helium India (P) Ltd. v. ONGC, (2003) 8 SCC 593, D.D. Sharma v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 325).
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

(ii), but such interference does not entail a review of the merits of the dispute, and is limited to situations where the findings of the 7 arbitrator are arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter. An arbitral award may not be interfered with if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts. (See Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1