Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr on 17 September, 1987
23. Lastly, Mr. Pratap submits that the impugned award is a unanimous
award, rendered by a tribunal comprising of three expert arbitrators, who
have considerable knowledge and experience in shipping matters. Thus, as
observed by the Supreme court in the case of MCD v. Jagannath Ashok
Kumar, (1987) 4 SCC 497, every endeavour shall be made to uphold the
award of the skilled persons that the parties themselves have selected to
decide the dispute between them.
Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
In this regard,
he places reliance on the following cases: Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board vs. Progressive Writers and Publishers,(2009) 5 SCC 678; M/s
Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. Govt. of Kerala & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 38; U.P.
State Electricity Board vs. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 397;
Bank Of India & Anr vs K.Mohandas & Ors on 27 March, 2009
9. Mr. A.K. Ganguly submits that contrary to the well-recognized
principle of construction of a contract that a contract must be read as a
whole and each clause should be harmoniously construed in order to
ascertain the true meaning of its several clauses (Reference is made to the
judgement of the Supreme Court in Bank of India & Anr. vs. K. Mohandas
& Ors.,(2009)5 SCC 313), the tribunal ignored the mandate of clause 1-the
governing clause of COA read with clause 3, while interpreting clause 35-
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
U.P. State Electricity Board vs M/S Searsole Chemicals Limited on 21 February, 2001
In this regard,
he places reliance on the following cases: Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board vs. Progressive Writers and Publishers,(2009) 5 SCC 678; M/s
Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. Govt. of Kerala & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 38; U.P.
State Electricity Board vs. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 397;
M.P.Housing Board vs Progressive Writers & Publishers on 20 March, 2009
In this regard,
he places reliance on the following cases: Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board vs. Progressive Writers and Publishers,(2009) 5 SCC 678; M/s
Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. Govt. of Kerala & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 38; U.P.
State Electricity Board vs. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., (2001) 3 SCC 397;
1