Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Learn Nature Consultants on 13 December, 2022 cites

Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014

41.What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31and 32 of Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], 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. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at is decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality.
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 2182 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

20. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Mcdermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. {2006 AIR SCW 3276} has laid down that Section 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act provided only for entitlement to compensation and not the mode and manner in which such compensation is to be quantified. It further held that there is nothing in Indian law to show that any of the formulae adopted in other countries is prohibited in law or the same would be inconsistent with the law prevailing in India. The Court held that in the assessment of damages, the court must consider only strict legal obligations, and not ''the expectations''. In instant case, the liquidated damages have not been quantified as such in order to find out the reasonableness a claimant is required to place on record the facts qua damages suffered by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next