Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (4.60 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 29B in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
A. K. Kraipak & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 April, 1969
9. Elaborating on the aforementioned Point 1, learned
Senior Counsel pressed into service A.K.Kraipak and others Vs.
Union of India and others (1969) 2 SCC 262 (Kraipak), Keshav
Mills Co. Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others
(1973) 1 SCC 380 (Keshav Mills), State of Gujarat and others Vs.
Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others (1994) 3
SCC 552 (Pethraj) and Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited
Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and others (2015)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/34
OSA(CAD) No.163 of 2022
13 SCC 233 (Rishi Kiran).
Rishi Kiran Logistics P.Ltd vs Board Of Trus. Of Kandla Port Trust&Ors; on 21 April, 2014
9. Elaborating on the aforementioned Point 1, learned
Senior Counsel pressed into service A.K.Kraipak and others Vs.
Union of India and others (1969) 2 SCC 262 (Kraipak), Keshav
Mills Co. Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others
(1973) 1 SCC 380 (Keshav Mills), State of Gujarat and others Vs.
Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust and others (1994) 3
SCC 552 (Pethraj) and Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited
Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and others (2015)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/34
OSA(CAD) No.163 of 2022
13 SCC 233 (Rishi Kiran).
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
16. The Section 34 Court thereafter as part of legal drill
before it, has examined the award under challenge and found
that there are three reasons, nay three good reasons against the
termination and therefore the verdict returned by the AT is
sustainable. In other wards, Section 34 Court did sustain AT
holding against termination and did not sustain this verdict of
AT by rejecting the argument that the termination is not
justifiable on the basis of NJP (Principles of Natural Justice)
but it did so by going into the award under challenge and saying
that the three good reasons found by the AT to say that the
termination is bad are good enough. In this regard, we remind
ourselves of the principle that in Sections 34 and 37 of A & C
Act legal drills, if a view taken by AT is a plausible view, the 34
Court much less the 37 Court will not intercede. We also remind
ourselves of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd.
Vs. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 131 (Ssangyong) wherein patent illegality under
Section 34(2A) of the A & C Act was elucidatively explained that
proviso to Section 34(2A) makes it clear that mere erroneous
application of law cannot be a ground to set aside an arbitral
award. As already alluded to supra, Section 34 Court has
ultimately said that the award under challenge cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/34
OSA(CAD) No.163 of 2022
interfered with on the NJP ground alone as AT has come to the
conclusion that the termination is bad on the basis of 3 good
reasons which have been articulated in paragraphs 16 to 21 of
the Section 34 Court order which read as follows:
M/S Lion Engineering Consultants vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2015
21. Though learned counsel on both sides did not press
into service Lion Engineering, we reminded ourselves of
M/s.Lion Engineering Consultants Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (2018) 16 SCC 758 (Lion Engineering)
wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that paragraphs 16 and 17
of MSP (MSP Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation Ltd reported in (2015) 13 SCC 713)
is no longer good law. A plea set out in the memorandum of
grounds, even if it is a point which was not raised before the AT
can be raised before the Section 34 Court is Lion Engineering
principle. Whether this principle can be extended and applied as
between Sections 34 and 37 Courts is the interesting point that
falls for consideration. On this point alone, Ms.Preeti, learned
counsel for contractor requested for a short accommodation to
examine the obtaining position of law and revert to this Court.
Request acceded to. List day after tomorrow.