Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.51 seconds)
M/S.14 Reels Entertainment Private ... vs M/S. Eros International Media Limited on 25 January, 2021
cites
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
Explanation 2 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and
Explanation 2 to Section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by
the Amendment Act only so that Western
Geco [ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd.,
(2014) 9 SCC 263 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 12] , as
understood in Associate Builders [Associate
Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC
(Civ) 204] , and paras 28 and 29 in particular, is
now done away with.
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 75 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that the decision in ONGC Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes
Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705 however did not elaborate as to what would
constitute fundamental policy of Indian law.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mmtc Ltd. vs M/S.Vedanta Ltd. on 18 February, 2019
102. Further as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
MMTC Vs. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163, we cannot interfere with
an award if the view taken by an Arbitrator is a possible view based on
facts. Under Section 34 of the Act, Courts are not sitting in an appeal.
The scope of interference under Section 37 of the Act is thus
circumscribed.
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn.Ltd vs Western Geco International Ltd on 4 September, 2014
In Ltd. Vs. Western Geco International Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC
263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized three distinct and
fundamental juristic principles that must necessarily be understood as a
part and parcel of the “fundamental policy of Indian law”. They are as
follows:-