Adjudicators' Limits on Imposing Costs Beyond Statute

Ranhill E & C Sdn Bhd vs Tioxide (M) Sdn Bhd and other

It also sought acceleration costs. Ultimately, the extension was given on condition that there would be no acceleration costs. ... , LAD, payment to third parties and testing costs. ... The other, which is the negative obligation, is the agreement to not refer the dispute or difference anywhere else but to arbitration. Ranhill is therefore obliged to arbitrate. It cannot adjudicate. ... Put another way, adjudicators need only address the factual and legal issues as adumbrated in the ex....

HELSINN HEALTHCARE SA vs HETERO HEALTHCARE LIMITED - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7084

The strict line of authority relied upon by the Defendant undoubtedly holds that the time prescribed under Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the DHC Rules is mandatory and that a replication filed beyond the maximum statutorily permissible limit of 45 days cannot be entertained. ... In the present case, the Defendant filed its Written Statement 57 days beyond the 30 days statutorily prescribed period. ... Even if it is assumed that the costs were paid on the same date, the 30 ....

[106] I further order no costs in all four applications in view of the importance of the issues in these cases. ... To seek to challenge the adjudicators decision on the ground that he has exceeded his jurisdiction or breached the rules of natural justice (save in the plainest cases) is likely to lead to a substantial waste of time and expense -as, we suspect, the costs incurred in the present case will demonstrate ... It also sought acceleration costs. Ultimately, the extension was....

UTAMA MOTOR WORKSHOP (S) SDN BHD vs BESICON ENGINEERING WORKS SDN BHD

If adjudicators can rely on a party's failure to deposit in full the Fees/ Expenses with the Director without "making" the adjudication decisions within any one of the applicable 3 Prescribed Time Periods, this will allow adjudicators to circumvent the mandatory provisions of s 12(2)(a) to (c) ... BCEG International (M) Sdn Bhd & Other Cases, at [12]." ... [35] O 59 rr 2(2) and 3(2) of the RC provide as follows: "Order 59 rule 2(2) Subject to the express provisions of any written law and of these Rule....

WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD vs NS BLUESCOPE LYSAGHT MALAYSIA SDN BHD

, the fees that KLRCA may impose for the services and expenses of an Adjudicator, costs of adjudication proceedings, and fees and expenses of Adjudicators. ... 21 I can draw these various strands together: (a) An express agreement to give an adjudicator jurisdiction to decide in a binding way whether he has jurisdiction will fall into the normal category of any agreement; it simply has to be shown that there was an express agreement. ... One then ne....

If adjudicators can rely on a party's failure to deposit in full the Fees/ Expenses with the Director without "making" the adjudication decisions within any one of the applicable 3 Prescribed Time Periods, this will allow adjudicators to circumvent the mandatory provisions of Accordingly, the defendants cannot resort to the equitable estoppel doctrine in the face of express provisions of Malaysian written law in s 40(1)(a) to (f) and (2) TMA; (4) there is an equitable doctrine that Equity follows the ....

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS LAVKUSH PRASAD - 2009 Supreme(MP) 434

No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. ... ... injured or might have lost his life Thus so far as interest is concerned it is almost automatic once default, on the part of the employer in paying the compensation due, takes place beyond the permissible limit of one month. ... said principal amount of compensation as the claimants would stand deprived of their legally due compensation for a period beyond one month which is statutorily granted to the employer concerned to make good his liability for....

Utama Motor Workshop (S) Sdn Bhd vs Besicon Engineering Works Sdn Bhd

” (emphasis added); and (7) if - If adjudicators can rely on a party’s failure to deposit in full the Fees/Expenses with the Director without “making” the adjudication decisions within any one of the applicable 3 Prescribed Time Periods ... Accordingly, the Defendants cannot resort to the equitable estoppel doctrine in the face of express provisions of Malaysian written law in s 40(1)(a) to (f) and (2)TMA (4) there is an equitable doctrine that Equity ... Pursuant to para 12(2)(c) CIPAA, the Adjudicator is required to o....

National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Keshav Bahadur - 2004 Supreme(Raj) 64

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated, without any order as to costs. ... ... The stand in essence, therefore, is that when extra premium, if any, is not paid, for any enhanced liability, the statutorily fixed liability of Rs.50,000/- was the maximum that could have been awarded and nothing beyond it. ... The insurer cannot withhold the awarded amount indefinitely. ... No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110CC of the Act or Section 171 of ....

Sometimes it is used to impose for the purposes of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail. Sometimes it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. ... Therefore, such a decision by the Adjudicator cannot stand. ... It is not uncommon for adjudicators to decide the scope of their jurisdiction solely by reference to the words used in the notice of adjudication, without having regard to the necessary implicatio....

Shashwat Agrawal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1663

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. Heard Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned AGA for the State. The Lok Adalat cannot impose conditions beyond a compromise agreement, as its role is limited to facilitating settlements without adjudicatory powers. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Court, Saharanpur i....

State of Uttarakhand VS Kumaon Stone Crusher - 2017 Supreme(SC) 1720

The penalty was held to be invalid by the High Court in view of its conclusion about the invalidity of the transit fee. The penalty, however, cannot be beyond what is permissible in the Act. That aspect, however, is not under challenge in these appeals as the State Government after the impugned judgment of the High Court realizing its mistake amended the Rule so as to bring the provision of penalty in accord with the provisions of the Act.”

National Highways Authority of India VS HCC Ltd. - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2794

(b) The ‘costs’ is contractually defined under the provisions of Section 1.1 (g) and the scope and ambit of the expression “costs” cannot travel beyond what has been defined under the agreement. Thus, the costs as a term is compensatory in nature to the extent of the eventualities prescribed under the definition and not beyond the same. By way of the definition “costs” as a term is broad enough to cover within its sweep “other charges” which if read along with the condition 53.1, 70.1 and 70.2 indicate that the term “other charges” may include rise and fall in inputs. The s....

Galfar Engineer and Contracting (India) Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Uttarakhand - 2014 Supreme(UK) 586

That aspect, however, is not under challenge in these appeals as the State Government after the impugned judgment of the High Court realizing its mistake amended the Rule so as to bring the provision of penalty in accord with the provisions of the Act.' The penalty, however, cannot be beyond what is permissible in the Act. 8. As per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sitapur Packaging (AIR 2003 SC 2165) (supra), transit fee under Rule 5 is clearly regulatory in nature and thus, it was not necessary for the State Government to establish quid pro quo, therefore, this....

Mukesh Kumar Sharma VS UOI - 2012 Supreme(Del) 2125

Rule 46 cannot be interpreted to be read beyond what is statutorily prescribed under Section 59 of the ITBPF Act, 1992.