A. R. LAKSHMANAN, TARUN CHATTERJEE
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Bumihiway DDB LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.
2. The appellant National Highways Authority of India has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dated 06.01.2006 in Arbitration Petition No. 23 of 2005 whereby the High Court in modification of its order dated 01.07.2005 substituted Mr. Justice P. Chenna Keshav Reddy, former Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Gauhati High Court as the Presiding Arbitrator in place of Mr. Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao.
FACTS :
3. The appellant National Highways Authority of India (in short "the NHAI") issued letter of acceptance to respondent No.1, Bumihiway DDB Limited (JV), New Delhi for award of the contract for widening to 4/6 lanes and strengthening of existing 2-Lane carriage of National Highway-5 from Km 233.000 to Km 284.000 between Ichapuram to Ganjam in the State of Orissa, which was a part of the Chennai-Kolkata Corridor of the Golden Quadrilateral connecting Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata.
4. On 11.06.2001, the appellants entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 for the aforesaid contract. The contract agreement contained a mechanism for resolution of disputes between the parties as
Yushwith Construction P. Ltd. v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd. & Anr.
Datar Switchgear Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr.
SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. & Anr.
Rite Approach Group Ltd. v. Rosoboronexport
Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. Petronet MHB Ltd.
You One Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highway Authority of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.