Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.53 seconds)
Technology Information Forecasting ... vs Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 20 December, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Selan Exploration Technology Ltd. on 9 November, 2010

13. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel states that as per the Clauses V, VIII and IX the repayment of the amount was dependent upon the success in development of the technology and not on any commercial outcome. He challenges the said reasoning of the Arbitrator wherein he holds that the success of the project is dependent upon the commercial outcome of the said project. He places reliance on Union of India v. Selan Exploration Technology Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3872, wherein it was held that "no clause of the contract can be given a go-bye and an interpretation which goes contrary to an express term of the contract can certainly not be adopted."and states that the Arbitrator has all together ignored the material clauses of the contract.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

30. It is the contention of TIFAC that the repayment is dependent upon success in development of the technology and not its commercial outcome. The finding of the Arbitrator that the project needs to attain commercial viability for repayments to begin, is misplaced. Further, the SEPL never objected to the said certification of AMC in the 5 th and 6th meeting, that the technology has been developed successfully. The Arbitrator also supported the said contention and gave a finding that 3 Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S. Bharat Enterprise on 23 March, 2023

94. Further clarification of this proposition is brought about through observations of this Court in a further decision by 3-Judge Bench in Union of India v. Bharat Enterprise wherein it was underlined that the existence and powers of an arbitrator are a creature of the agreement between the parties, and it is the terms of the contract which serves as a fundamental basis for the procedure to be adopted by the arbitral tribunal. Therefore, the concerned arbitrator is restricted to the terms of the contract thereof and cannot go outside its scope or what is, per se, specified. In words of the Bench, "A disregard of the specific provisions of the contract would incur wrath of the Award being imperiled. This position cannot be in the region of dispute."
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

Psa Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of V.O. ... on 28 July, 2021

50. Hence, it would be apposite to conclude that the Award is vitiated by patent illegality. The Arbitrator has gone behind the terms of the TDA and rewritten the contract. Reliance is placed on PSA Sical Terminals (P) Ltd. v. V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust6, wherein it was held that the Award is liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality if the Arbitrator has rewritten the terms of the contract. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 141 - B R Gavai - Full Document
1   2 Next