Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Sorted by: old Year: 2019 Page 1 of about 70 results (0.057 seconds)

Jan 15 2019 (HC)

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs.delhi Airport Metro Express Priva ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-15-2019

..... associate builders versus delhi development authority, (2015) 3 scc49 a judgment is cited and relied by both the sides. the decision holds that section 5 of the a&c act bars courts from intervening with the arbitration fao(os)(comm) no.58/2018 page 66 of 97 award governed by part-i, except on the grounds mentioned in sections 34(2) and ..... ground that it was opposite to the specific terms of the contract. reference was also made by dmrc to judgment of the madras high court and bombay high court in central warehousing corporation versus a.s.a. transport, (2008) 3 mlj382and r.s. jiwani versus ircon international ltd,. (2010) 1 bom. cr.529. in the former case it was held after relying upon ..... any opinion on the correctness and application of the principle that an appeal is in continuum of the application under section 34 of the act.129. in r.s. jiwani (supra), the full bench of bombay high court while applying the doctrines of severability and partial validity had clarified that fao(os)(comm) no.58/2018 page 93 of 97 the said ..... is impermissible to dissect and segregate. reference was made to section 23 of the contract act. these principles, it has been held, can be applied to an award after referring to the decision of the supreme court in j.c. budhraja versus chairman, orissa mining corporation ltd., (2008) 2 scc444wherein it was held that the entire fao(os)(comm) no.58/2018 page .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2019 (HC)

M/S Matrix Infosoft Pvt Ltd vs.m/s Planman Tehnologies (India) Pvt Lt ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-16-2019

..... a petition fao (os) 07/2019 page 4 of 16 under section 11 of the act before this court. the learned arbitrator rendered the impugned award.5. five submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned single judge, which ..... the subject property. in support of this contention, reliance was placed on the communications dated:11. 12.2007, 22.2.2008, 27.2.2008, 3.3.2008, 4.3.2008, 5.3.2008 and 6.3.2008. (iii) thirdly, the stand taken by the respondent that the petitioner s communication dated 23.11.2007 was with a ..... 23.11.2007 and communication exchanged thereafter between the parties 11.12.2007, 22.2.2008, 26.2.2008, 27.2.2008, 3.3.2008, two letters of even date, i.e., 3.3.2008, 4.3.2008, 5.3.2008 and 6.3.2008. communication dated i.e. 23.1 based on the aforesaid communications, it was sought ..... respondent through a notice sought refund of `28 lakhs given at the time of execution of the mou. the appellant gave a notice dated march 31, 2008. vide this notice, the appellant demanded under various heads a sum of `9,23,70,854/- from the respondent. the matter was referred to arbitration in ..... with you . subsequently, correspondences were exchanged between the parties.4. it is the case of the appellant that for the first time, on march 07, 2008, the respondent conveyed to appellant that it wished to discontinue the deal for the reason that it had found an alternate premise. the respondent appears to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 2019 (HC)

M/S National Highways Authority of India vs.m/s Sunway Construction Sd ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-22-2019

..... price adjustment the price adjustment of bitumen, it is the base rate which is to be applied and not the current rate. calculating formula for thus, the supreme court held that while passing ipcs, the comparison has to be between the base rate and the prevailing price.15. thus, there is no issue as to how bi ..... the contractor only on 11th august, 2005. the time for completion of the work was 30 months from the scheduled date. thus, date of completion was 25th april, 2008. the total value of the awarded contract was rs.286,85,00,000/- excluding provisional sums. the price including provisional sums was rs.329,64,75,000/-.3. ..... . rajsree advocates. (m:9910524364) ajay, coram: justice prathiba m. singh judgment prathiba m. singh, j.1. the present petition under section 34 of the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 (`act?) has been filed by the national highway authority of india (hereinafter, nhai?) challenging the impugned award dated 3rd october, 2011. the said award was passed by a three-member ..... price at which is omp1602012 page 8 of 24 price? includes the excise duty. 14. it is settled by the supreme court in national highway authority of india v. progressive mvr (jv) air2018sc1270 where the supreme court has held in respect of the same formula as under: 31. the dab thereafter worked out the formula in the following ..... $~ * + in the high court of delhi at new delhi reserved on :3. d december, 2018 date of decision :22nd january, 2019 m/s national highways authority of india o.m.p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2019 (HC)

M/S C & C Maritime Pte Ltd vs.advance Surfactants India Ltd

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-24-2019

..... natural justice infringement of natural ex.p. 311/2014 page 13 15. in national ability s.a. vs. tinna oil & chemicals ltd. & ors., (2008) 105 drj446 this court has also considered and rejected the plea of violation of principles of natural justice in arbitration proceedings with the following observation:-" 27(c) .one cannot be oblivious ..... navin chawla ex.appl.(os) 233/2015 & 607/2015 1. this petition has been filed under section 49 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the act?) seeking enforcement of the arbitral awards dated 19.11.2013 and 21.03.2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal adjudicating the disputes that have arisen ..... :-"that 27. in our view, what has been stated by this court in renusagar with reference to section 7(1)(b)(ii)of the foreign awards act must equally apply to the ambit and scope of section 48(2)(b) of the 1996 act. in renusagar it has been expressly exposited the expression public policy in ..... wider import than the public policy in section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the foreign awards act. we have no hesitation in holding that renusagar must apply for the purposes of section 48(2)(b) of the 1996 act. insofar as for setting aside an award under section 34 is concerned, the principles laid down ..... section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the foreign awards act refers to the public policy of india. the expression public policy used in section 7(1)(b)(ii) was held to mean public policy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2019 (HC)

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd vs.m/s j.k. International ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-28-2019

..... that this being the prohibition on imports by the government fell well within the ambit of the force majeure clause in the governing contract dated 31.7.2008 as being as act of government. 26. however, one day later, on 19th february, 2009, further negotiations for reduction of price were initiated by stc. the letter ..... not meet for the reason that there was basic difference in the approach of the majority award and the minority award and in those circumstances, the court observed in such incumbent that it was o.m.p. 2/2014 page 27 of 29 circumstances for the majority to have discussed the point raised ..... of para 43 of the aforesaid judgment would show that the observations so made were in the light of the facts of the aforesaid matter. the court had observed that then majority award did not inspire confidence. it was also observed that the majority has dealt with the submissions of the parties but ..... majority is differing from the minority.8. it is further submitted that in view of the errors in the majority award the only option left for this court is to set aside the award completely. insofar as the calculation of damages is concerned, it is submitted, that the same is also erroneous as ..... does not deal with the minority award has been considered by a ld. division bench of this court in state trading corporation of india vs. helm dungemittel gmbh & anr (fao (os) (comm) 76 of 2016). the court has held as under: to accept 29. mr. sethi has contended that since the arbitrators had .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 2019 (HC)

Shanker Doon & Ors vs.government of Nct of Delhi & Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-28-2019

..... and subsequently the two notifications dated july 04, 2016. he would rely on videsh sanchar nigam ltd. and anr. v. ajit kumar kar & ors. (2008) 11 scc591to state that in case of a mistake, the same would not confer any right on any party and that the same can be corrected. ..... aggrieved party, should have been made party to the writ petition in the instant matter and given a chance to make their case before the court.21. it is stated that the learned single judge has also heavily relied on the concept of provisional fee to conclude that the students being ..... of fee. it is stated that during the pendency of such discussions, the respondent association lpa7332017 and connected matter page 12 of 50 approached this court through w.p.(c) no.2217/2016 challenging the rescinding the order dated march 10, 2016.16. it is further stated that the government on ..... that the applicability of the fee, so notified is explicitly futuristic and could not have been applied retrospectively. it is further stated that the supreme court in a catena of judgments has held that no retrospective subordinate legislation or a retrospective executive measure may be taken under a legislation unless the legislation ..... power to rescind the same in view of section 21 of the general clauses act. the learned single judge by referring to the judgment of the supreme court in b.n. ganguly (supra) and after noting the object of the act to be prohibiting capitation fee; regulation of admission and fixation of non-exploitative .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Dev Sharma vs.indo Tibetan Border Police & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Ranbir Singh Saini and Anr. Vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Ranjit Singh Dalpatia vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2019 (HC)

Sunil Kumar vs.union of India and Ors

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-31-2019

..... of the level of joint secretary and above and officers appointed by the central government corporations established by or under the central act, government companies, societies etc. the court held as under: can it be said that the classification is based on intelligible differentia when one set of bureaucrats of joint ..... (2) is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. in union of india v. dinesh engineering corporation (supra) the supreme court held that courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision when it is based on the views of experts and knowledgeable persons.29 ..... who had obtained an interim order prior to retirement. 34.5 in view of the subsequent decision, the nigam by a resolution dated 13th april, 2008 resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees, irrespective of the source of entry, to 60 years. however, the state government provided a ..... union of india (1999) 4 scc756and union of india v. dineshan k.k. (2008) 1 scc586 27. having examined the said decisions, it appears to the court that it is not entirely correct that the supreme court has adopted a hands-off approach in relation to questions concerning differential treatment to those working ..... c) 1951/2012 and batch matters page 43 of 70 recommendations dated 13th april, 2008 of the nigam. 34.6 this led to a further round of litigation and the division bench of the allahabad high court, lucknow bench by its common judgment dated 29th july, 2010 declared the 2005 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //