JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Vinod Construction Co. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
2. The arbitral award dated 16.08.2005, which is a subject matter of consideration, awarded interest to the contractor on account of delayed payment. The orders which came to be passed during the course of the challenge to the above award dated 16.08.2005, clearly depict, that interest was not awarded by the arbitrators either on earnest money or on security deposit. Yet, it is sought to be asserted on behalf of the appellant, that the grant of interest in the arbitral award fell foul of two judgments rendered by this Court.
3. We may refer to the two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant (to assail the impugned order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 03.04.2006 affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge on 30.11.2005). In the first instance, reliance was placed on Union of India v. Bright Power Projects (India) Private Limited, (2015) 9 SCC 695. The dispute in the cited case has been summarised in paragraph 1 thereof, which is extracted below :
"Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered in Union of India v. Bright Power Projects (I)(P) Ltd. dated 7-8-2006, by the High Court o
Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division v. N.C. Budharaj (2001) 2 SCC 721
Madnani Construction Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 549
Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-De-Space-Age (1996) 1 SCC 516
Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. (2009) 12 SCC 26
Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions v. Railways
Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.
Union of India v. Ambica Construction
Union of India v. Bright Power Projects (India) Private Limited
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.