Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ministry Of Defence, Government Of ... vs Cenrex Sp. Z.O.O & Ors. on 8 December, 2015
In Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India vs. CENREX SP
Z.O.O (supra), relying upon Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs
Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705, it was, inter alia, held that once the
nature of contract was such that losses were incalculable, the amount
claimed as liquidated damages could be claimed as per Section 74 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872, without proving and showing how
much loss has been caused. The subject matter of the contract therein
was supply of „parachutes‟ and it was found difficult and impossible
to assess about the loss caused to the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India towards delay as there was no mechanism to
calculate as to how the Army of this country would have got affected
due to non-delivery of parachutes in time and what could have been
the alternative arrangements due to delayed delivery and also the
expenses required to be incurred on account of non-availability
thereof. Here, as is manifest, the damages could have easily
calculated.
Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011
(See Associate Builders v. DDA [Associate
Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
688); and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.
Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006)
11 SCC 181]).
Section 73 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. on 9 September, 2021
24. Reference be made to Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 131which
delineates the limited area for judicial interference in such type of
appeals where any award is under challenge. It has been observed
therein that the Courts are prohibited to re-appreciate evidence for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed FAO (COMM) 96/2021 Page 7 of 12
By:SONIA THAPLIYAL
Signing Date:12.07.2023
13:13:10
finding out any patent illegality as the Courts do not sit in appeal
against such award. It has also, inter alia, been observed therein that
interference on the ground of patent illegality may arise when the
Arbitrator takes a view which is not even a possible one. The
Supreme Court, therein, explained the scope and ambit of patent
illegality as under:-