Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.62 seconds)
Union Of India vs Rail Tech Infraventure Pvt Ltd on 31 May, 2022 cites

Union Of India & Anr. vs M/S Jindal Rail Infrastructure Limited on 23 May, 2022

20. The letter clearly finds mention that the contract has been rescinded under clause 62 of GCC, wherein, issuance of 07 days notice followed by 48 hours notice are obligated and there is no legal escape to this procedure but the petitioner never issued the said notices. The Tribunal in the impugned award has noted that the contract was terminated well over 93% of the work has been completed. It has considered the letter of the petitioner dated 08.08.2018 that no contract was terminated in the Engineering Branch of Bikaner Division in the last three years where 92% or more of the work was completed nor in any case, in the last three years, extension was granted with penalty in cases where financial progress was 90% or more. The Tribunal has also noted that the contract was terminated under clause 62 of GCC without notices as mandated under the clause. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has assigned the reason why the contract termination was not in order particularly when financial progress was more than 92% and physical progress was more than 93%. In the light of the reasons stated above, I do not find force in the contention of the petitioner that requirement of notice was not applicable or relevant in the present case. When the rescind letter itself finds OMP Comm No. 06/21 Union of India Vs. Rail Tech Infraventure Pvt Ltd Page No.17 of 26 mention that the work has been rescinded under clause 62 of GCC, which mandates issue of the notices. I fail to understand on what basis, the petitioner has alleged that there was no requirement of notice.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs M/S Durga Construction Co. on 7 November, 2013

In the case of DDA v/s Durga Construction, (2013) SCC Online Del 4451, it was held that although the courts have the jurisdiction to condone the delay, the approach in exercising such jurisdiction cannot be liberal and the conduct of the applicant will have to be tested on the anvil of whether the applicant acted with due diligence and dispatch. The applicant would have to show that the delay was on account of reasons beyond the control of applicant and could not be avoided despite all possible efforts by the applicant.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 68 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Union Of India vs Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors on 16 March, 2005

In the case of Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers (2005) 4 SCC 239, it was held that conjoint reading of Section 31 (5) of the Act, Section 3 & Section 34 (3) of the Act would show that the period of limitation would commence only after a valid delivery of an arbitral award under Section 31 (5) of the Act. It is not a matter of mere formality but a matter of substance. Delivery of award to the party, to be effective, has to be received by the party and this delivery sets in motion the period of limitation. In view of the above, the period of limitation of 90 days would start from 07.02.2020, the day, the petitioner received the signed copy of award. The Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 03/2020 has extended the limitation period we.f. 15.03.2020 keeping in view the situation arisen out of Covid-19 Pandemic in India, which is also applicable in the arbitral proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 189 - P P Naolekar - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

In the case of Patel Engineering Ltd Vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corp Ltd, 2020 (7) SCC 167, it was observed that in paragraphs (39) & (40) of Ssangyong Engineering (supra), the Court reiterated paragraphs (42.2) & (42.3) of Associate Builders (supra), wherein, it was held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for Arbitrator to decide, unless the Arbitrator construes a contract in a manner, which no fair minded or reasonable person would take i.e. if a view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible OMP Comm No. 06/21 Union of India Vs. Rail Tech Infraventure Pvt Ltd Page No.22 of 26 view to take. It was held that the ground of patent illegality is a ground available under the statute for setting aside a domestic award, if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same; or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document

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

In the case of Patel Engineering Ltd Vs. North Eastern Electric Power Corp Ltd, 2020 (7) SCC 167, it was observed that in paragraphs (39) & (40) of Ssangyong Engineering (supra), the Court reiterated paragraphs (42.2) & (42.3) of Associate Builders (supra), wherein, it was held that construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for Arbitrator to decide, unless the Arbitrator construes a contract in a manner, which no fair minded or reasonable person would take i.e. if a view taken by the arbitrator is not even a possible OMP Comm No. 06/21 Union of India Vs. Rail Tech Infraventure Pvt Ltd Page No.22 of 26 view to take. It was held that the ground of patent illegality is a ground available under the statute for setting aside a domestic award, if the decision of the arbitrator is found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same; or the construction of the contract is such that no fair or reasonable person would take or that the view of the arbitrator is not even a possible view.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 952 - R F Nariman - Full Document

M/S Lion Engineering Consultants vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2015

The case of Lion Engineering Consultants Vs. State of MP & Ors (supra) is not helpful to the petitioner in any manner. In that case, it was held that there is no bar to plea of jurisdiction being raised by way of an objection under Section 34 of the Act, even if, no such objection was raised under Section 16 of the Act. In the present case, the Tribunal has already held that the amount claimed in the claims is less than 20% of the cost of the tender.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. V. Pundarikakshudu And Sons And Anr on 9 September, 2003

19. Record reveals that the respondent within the stipulated time had completed about 92% (financial progress) and 98.27% (physical progress) of the work. For the remaining stretch, it had applied for the time extension upto 05.01.2018 without penalty and with PVC vide letter dated 04.10.2017 giving the reasons, which the petitioner considered and granted time extension upto 05.01.2018 vide letter dated 21.11.2017 under clause 17 B of GCC with penalty of Rs. 25,000/- per month subject to the condition that the respondent would give acceptance with penalty within a week's time. Though, the respondent expressed its reluctance stating the reasons vide letter dated 14.12.2017 but the petitioner did not consider the request. Record reveals that the petitioner before rescinding the contract never issued any notice either under clause 26 nor under clause 62 and levied penalty of Rs. 25,000/- per month for three months vide letter dated 27.06.2018 after the expiry of validity of the contract. It was held in the case of Union of India Vs. Pundarikakshudu & Sons & Anr, CA No. 8337-8339 of 1997, decided on 09.09.2003 that the rights and obligations of the parties were required to be considered as on the said date OMP Comm No. 06/21 Union of India Vs. Rail Tech Infraventure Pvt Ltd Page No.16 of 26 and not thereafter meaning thereby that the contract cannot be rescinded after the expiry of its validity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 18 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S Msk Projects (I)(Jv) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 21 July, 2011

In the case of MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd v/s State of Rajasthan & anr, 2011 (8) JT 37 (SC), it was held that Arbitrator is competent to award interest for the period commencing with the date of award or the date of decree or date of realization, which ever is earlier. While amount of interest is a matter of substantive law, the grant of interest for the award period is the matter of procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 191 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next