Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.34 seconds)
Delhi State Industrial & ... vs Manish Goel on 25 April, 2023 cites

M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980

...................................................................................... Reasons and Award: After going through the whole agreement along-with its schedules, a conflict in the wording of clause 12 as reproduced by claimant and schedule F is visible. Clause 12 of the agreement on page no. 36 of the agreement reads "For maintenance works including works of upgradation, aesthetics, special additions/alterations : In case of contract items which exceeds the limits laid down in the schedule contractor shall be paid rates specified in the schedule of quantities"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 39 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019

33. Supreme Court in case of SSangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (supra) has held that under Section 34 (2-A) of the Act, a decision which is perverse while no longer being a ground for challenge under "public policy of India", would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. A finding based on the documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led OMP (Comm.) No. 79/2022 Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs Manish Goel Page 35 of 40 by the parties and therefore would also have to be characterized as perverse. It is held that a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next