Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
48. Again in Dalip Singh (supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the new
creed of unscrupulous litigants who do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in court
proceedings.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), reported at (2019)
15 SCC 131, where the Supreme Court, while discussing the context
of "Public Policy of India", observed that the same means firstly that a
domestic award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian Law as
understood in Paragraph Nos. 18 and 27 of Associate Builders or
secondly that such award is against basic notions of justice or
morality as understood in Paragraph Nos. 36 to 39 of Associate
Builders. Patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which
refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which
does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law, was also
linked to public policy or public interest.
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
The concept of morality was discussed threadbare in Associate
Builders (supra). The conclusion arrived at by the Supreme Court was
that an award can be said to be against justice only when it shocks
the conscience of the court and basic notions of morality.
Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp.Ltd. And Anr. on 21 September, 2023
66. The petitioners cite Batliboi Environmental Engineers Ltd. (supra) for
the argument that computation of damages should not be whimsical
and absurd, resulting in a windfall and bounty for one party.
However, neither the refund of the consideration admittedly paid, nor
interest thereon, can be held to be a bounty or a windfall but comes
well within the contractual and statutory rights of the claimant to
obtain.
The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021
In Project Director (supra) as well as S.V. Samudram (supra), the
Supreme Court has reiterated that the Section 34 court can at best set
aside an award if the requirements of Section 34 are satisfied, but
cannot modify the same, supplanting its own view in place of the
Arbitrator which would be impermissible, being completely de hors the
jurisdiction under Section 34.