Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1989 (1) TMI 314 - SC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court overturns arbitrator's compensation award, recalculates interest. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deleting the Rs. 20,000 compensation awarded by the arbitrator to the Government. The amount of interest payable to ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                          Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              Supreme Court overturns arbitrator's compensation award, recalculates interest.

                              The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deleting the Rs. 20,000 compensation awarded by the arbitrator to the Government. The amount of interest payable to the contractor would be recalculated based on the modified award. No order as to costs was made.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Claims by the contractor (Items 1, 8, and 9).
                              2. Counter-claim by the respondents under Clause 2 of the contract.
                              3. Jurisdiction of the arbitrator under Clause 25 of the contract.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Claims by the Contractor (Items 1, 8, and 9):
                              - Item 1: Rs. 12,720 for Delay in Handing Over Site
                              - The contractor claimed Rs. 12,720 for losses due to the Department's delay in handing over the site. The learned single Judge, after examining the evidence, found no error apparent on the face of the record and upheld the arbitrator's rejection of this claim. The Division Bench concurred, noting that the award was a non-speaking award and did not disclose any error of law. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the High Court was justified in affirming the award regarding this claim.

                              - Item 8: Rs. 6,172 for Security Deposit
                              - The contractor claimed Rs. 6,172 being the amount kept as security with the respondent. The learned single Judge, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the security amount had been properly adjusted by the Department, which had undertaken the work at the contractor's cost and risk. The Division Bench agreed, and the Supreme Court upheld this conclusion, reiterating that the award did not show any error on its face.

                              - Item 9: Rs. 30,000 for Purchase of Truck
                              - The contractor claimed Rs. 30,000 as compensation for purchasing a truck for the work. The learned single Judge found that no material was placed before the arbitrator to substantiate this claim. The Division Bench upheld the rejection, and the Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the contractor had no arguable case.

                              2. Counter-claim by the Respondents under Clause 2 of the Contract:
                              - Rs. 20,000 for Delay in Execution
                              - The respondents claimed Rs. 24,000 as 10% compensation for the contractor's delay in executing the work, and the arbitrator awarded Rs. 20,000. The learned single Judge held that under Clause 2, only the Superintending Engineer or the Development Commissioner could adjudicate such compensation, not the arbitrator. The Division Bench disagreed, stating that Clause 2 did not exclude arbitration under Clause 25. They reasoned that the determination of whether the contractor was responsible for the delay could be arbitrated since Clause 2 did not specify the authority or procedure for such determination.

                              - The Supreme Court, however, found that Clause 2 envisaged the determination of compensation for delay by the Superintending Engineer, whose decision would be final. The Court held that the opening words of Clause 25 ("Except where otherwise provided in the contract") excluded disputes under Clause 2 from arbitration. Therefore, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award compensation under Clause 2, and the amount of Rs. 20,000 awarded by the arbitrator was deleted.

                              3. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator under Clause 25 of the Contract:
                              - Interpretation of Clauses 2 and 25
                              - The Supreme Court interpreted Clause 2 as a penalty clause requiring the Superintending Engineer to determine compensation for delay. The Court emphasized that the Superintending Engineer's decision was final and not subject to arbitration under Clause 25. The Court noted that the opening phrase of Clause 25 excluded matters provided for elsewhere in the contract, such as those under Clause 2, from arbitration.

                              - The Court clarified that while the decision regarding compensation under Clause 2 was not arbitrable, this did not extend to other claims for loss or damage under general law or the Contract Act. The Court restored the judgment of the learned single Judge, deleting the Rs. 20,000 compensation awarded by the arbitrator.

                              Conclusion:
                              The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deleting the Rs. 20,000 compensation awarded by the arbitrator to the Government. The amount of interest payable to the contractor would be recalculated based on the modified award. No order as to costs was made.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found