SANJIV KHANNA, B. R. GAVAI, SANJAY KUMAR, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Gayatri Balasamy – Appellant
Versus
ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - Point 1 (!) (!) (!) (!) - Point 2 (!) (!) (!) - Point 3 (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference background & framed issues (Para 1) |
| 2. survey of divergent case-law on modification (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. parties’ competing contentions on modification power (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. limited modification power with severability (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 5. doctrine of severability under sec 34(2)(a)(iv) (Para 36) |
| 6. section 33 and 34(4) as safety valves (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 7. severability and related principles for enforceability (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 8. post-award interest and settlements; statutory context (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 9. article 142 constraints and constitutional limits (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 10. court has a limited power to modify (conclusion) (Para 85) |
| 11. detailed doctrinal analysis and precedents (Para 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , |
Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited vs. State of Kerala
Shakti Nath and Others vs. Alpha Tiger Cyprus Investment No.3 Limited and Others
Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others
Pure Helium India (P) Limited v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission
Mukand Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
Vedanta Limited v. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Western GECO International Limited
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. v. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd.
Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Datar Switchgear Limited and Others
Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited
M.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. ANSALDO Energia SpA
Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others v. G.C. Roy
Ahmedabad St. Xavier College Society and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another
Pratap Chamaria v. Durga Prasad Chamaria
Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others
Budhia Swain and Others v. Gopinath Deb and Others
Century Textiles Industries Limited v. Deepak Jain and Another
Kinnari Mullick and Another v. Ghanshyam Das Damani
Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited
I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
Gayatri Balaswamy Vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited
Vishaka and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India
J.C. Budhraja vs. Chairman, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Another
Madhya Pradesh Power Generation Company Limited and Another vs. Ansaldo Energia Spa and Another
Vedanta Limited vs. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited
CIT, Central Calcutta vs. National Taj Traders
Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout
Juggilal Kamlapat v. General Fibre Dealers Ltd.
Dyna Technologies Private Limited v. Crompton Greaves Limited, (2019) 20 SCC 1 [Paras 87
Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs. State of Karnataka
Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal
Padam Sen Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat
Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and Another
Shilpa Sailesh vs. Varun Sreenivasan
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV
Kunhayammed & Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Western Geco International Ltd.
Kinnari Mullick & Anr. vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani
I-Pay Clearing Services (P) Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Som Datt Builders Ltd. v. State of Kerala
North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. M/S. S.A. Builders Ltd.
J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.
R.S. Jiwani vs. Ircon International Ltd.
National Highways Authority of India vs. Trichy Thanjavur Expressway Ltd.
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.