Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (2.70 seconds)
Union Of India vs M/S B.N.N Communication Engineers on 11 April, 2023 cites

Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Bhardwaj Brothers on 1 August, 2014

18. The Hon'ble High Court has in a subsequent judgment in National Highways Authority of India v. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6524 relied upon the judgments in Delhi Development Authority v. Bhardwaj Brothers (supra) and State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Toepfer International Asia Pte Ltd. (supra). After referring to the said judgments in paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Hon'ble High Court proceeded to observe as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 26 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs M/S Toepfer International Asia Pte Ltd. on 2 July, 2014

"35. What then would constitute the 'Fundamental policy of Indian Law' is the question. The decision in Saw Pipes Ltd. (supra) does not elaborate that aspect. Even so, the expression must, in our opinion, include all such fundamental principles as providing a basis for administration of justice and enforcement of law in this country. Without meaning to exhaustively enumerate the purport of the expression "Fundamental Policy of Indian Law", we may refer to three distinct and fundamental juristic principles that must necessarily be understood as a part and parcel of the Fundamental Policy of Indian law. The first and foremost is the principle that in every determination whether by a Court or other authority that affects the rights of a citizen or leads to any civil consequences, the Court or authority concerned is bound to adopt what is in legal parlance called a 'judicial approach' in the matter. The duty to adopt a judicial approach arises from the very nature of the power exercised by the Court or the authority does not have to be separately or additionally enjoined upon the fora concerned. What must be remembered is that the importance of Judicial approach in judicial and quasi judicial determination lies in the fact so long as the Court, Tribunal or the authority exercising powers that affect the rights or obligations of the parties before them shows fidelity to judicial approach, they cannot act in an arbitrary, capricious or whimsical manner. Judicial approach ensures that the authority acts bonafide and deals with the subject in a fair, reasonable and objective manner and that its decision is not actuated by any extraneous consideration. Judicial approach in that sense acts as a check against flaws and faults that can render the Arbtn no.324/2018 Union of India vs. M/s B.N.N Communication Engineers page no.27 decision of a Court, Tribunal or Authority vulnerable to challenge.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 86 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Shree Vinayak Cement Clearing Agency vs Cement Corporation Of India on 25 July, 2007

16. The senior counsel for the respondent has in this regard rightly argued that the scope of appeal under Section 37 is even more restricted. It has been so held by the Division Benches of this Court in Thyssen Krupp Werkstoffe v. Steel Authority of India MANU/DE/1853/2011 and Shree Vinayak Cement Clearing Agency v. Cement Corporation of India 147 (2007) DLT 385. It is also the contention of the senior counsel for the respondent that the argument made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and Arbtn no.324/2018 Union of India vs. M/s B.N.N Communication Engineers page no.18 being made before this Court, that the particular clause in the contract is a contract of indemnification, was not even raised before the Arbitral Tribunal and did not form the ground in the OMP filed under Section 34 of the Act and was raised for the first time in the arguments.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - V Sen - Full Document

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs M/S Dewan Chand Ram Saran on 25 April, 2012

17. The Supreme Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012) 5 SCC 306 refused to set aside an arbitral award, under the 1996 Act on the ground that the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal was against the terms of the contract and held that it could not be said that the Arbitral Tribunal had travelled outside its jurisdiction and the Court could not substitute its view in place of the interpretation accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal. It was reiterated that the Arbitral Tribunal is legitimately entitled to take the view which it holds to be correct one after considering the material before it and after interpreting the provisions of the Agreement and if the Arbitral Tribunal does so, its decision has to be accepted as final and binding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 317 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next