AI Overview

AI Overview...

Summary of Sources Related to 2010 5 Bombay CR 100

  • Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust (2010(5) Bombay CR 100)
  • Main Points & Insights:
    • The Bombay High Court clarified the scope of arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956, specifically Section 3G(5), emphasizing that disputes are to be resolved through arbitration as per the procedure outlined in the Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
    • The Court upheld that the remedy for aggrieved parties is to approach the appointed arbitrator, and the Court's role is limited to arbitration proceedings, including setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
    • The decision aligns with Supreme Court rulings, notably SCC 181, reinforcing the jurisdictional limits of courts in arbitration matters under the Highways Act.
    • The judgment supports the proposition that disputes under the Highways Act are to be adjudicated via arbitration, and courts should not interfere except in specific statutory circumstances.
  • References:

    • Bombay High Court decision: Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust 2010(5) Bombay CR 100
    • Supreme Court reference: SCC 181
    • Related case law: McDermott International Inc. (supporting arbitration enforcement)
  • Legal Principles & Broader Context

  • Main Points & Insights:
    • The Court's interpretation emphasizes the importance of arbitration clauses and statutory arbitration procedures in dispute resolution under infrastructure and public works laws.
    • The decisions illustrate the judiciary's approach to limiting judicial interference in arbitration, promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
    • The rulings also highlight the procedural aspects of challenging arbitral awards, emphasizing that such challenges are to be made under the Arbitration Act, with courts exercising limited review.
  • References:
    • General principles from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court decisions on arbitration and statutory dispute resolution.

Analysis and Conclusion

The 2010 Bombay High Court decision in Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust consolidates the legal stance that disputes arising under the National Highways Act, 1956, are primarily to be resolved through arbitration as mandated by the statute. The Court underscores that the judiciary's role is confined to supervisory functions over arbitration proceedings and awards, aligning with the broader jurisprudence favoring arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. This case reinforces the principle that statutory provisions, when providing for arbitration, should be strictly adhered to, and courts should refrain from unwarranted interference, thus promoting efficient resolution of infrastructure-related disputes.


Note: The provided references and insights are based on the extracted sources, primarily focusing on the case Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust and related legal principles.

Search Results for "2010 5 Bombay Cr 100"

Rajamma VS Project Director

2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 960 India - Kerala

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

National Highways Act 1956 - Section 3G( 5) - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 11 & 34 - ... Government under the Highways Act is only to appoint Arbitrators for adjudication of the disputes contemplated under sub-section (5) ... Ltd., [(2006) 11 SCC 181)] and the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust [2010(5) Bombay CR 100] in support of the said proposition. ... ... In Associated Constructions (supra....

RAJAMMA vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47904 India - High Court of Kerala

P. B. Suresh Kumar, J

Compensation - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - The court ruled ... Ltd., [(2006) 11 SCC 181)] and the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust [2010(5) Bombay CR 100] in support of the said proposition. ... In Associated Constructions (supra), the High Court of Bombay has clarified, following the decision of the Apex Court in Mc Dermott International Inc.....

Ramaswamy S/o.  Anantha Padmanabhan VS Union of India

2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 933 India - Kerala

ALEXANDER THOMAS

National Highways Act, 1956- Sec.3G(5) - The remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the arbitrator appointed by the Central ... Thereupon the petitioners had challenged impugned Ext.P-2 award by setting in motion arbitral proceedings as envisaged in Sec. 3G(5) ... [(2006) 11 SCC 181], as well as judgment of the Bombay High Court in Associated Constructions v. Mormugoa Port Trust [2010 (5) BOM. ... CR 100] this Court held that in a case where the District Court sets aside arbitral....

World Wide Agencies Private LTD.  VS Margarat T. Desor

1989 0 Supreme(SC) 648 India - Supreme Court

B. C. RAY, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE

combined petition was maintainable - In view of observations of this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v - Kalinga Tubes and reasoning of Bombay ... lakhs divided into 5000 equity shares of Rs - 100 each - paid up capital as per last annual return filed by company with Registrar ... carrying on business of travel agents at G-40, Connaught Circus, New Delhi - authorised share capital of company was to tune of Rs - 5 ... Kalinga Tubes (1965) 35 Com Cas 351 and the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Bilasrai Joharmal v. Akola ....

Anil Motiram Kalyankar VS Shree Jogeshwar Mahadev Mandir Trust

2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 2284 India - Bombay

A.P.BHANGALE

of the Civil Procedure Code and the Bombay Public Trusts Act on the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain appeals involving substantial ... Substantial Question of Law - Appeal Jurisdiction - The court considered the limitations and restrictions imposed by Section 100 ... Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar (since deceased by LR's) and others, AIR 1998 BOMBAY 131, whereby the Division Bench of this Court referred to Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, making reference to restrictions and limitations imposed in view ....

Ramesh S.  Alva VS State of Maharashtra

2012 0 Supreme(Bom) 67 India - Bombay

GIRISH GODBOLE

Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement Rules, 1999 - Rules 100 ... 2(10) of the said Act read with Section 33(w) and the Rules framed by the Commissioner of Police, New Bombay. ... Both the applications were rejected by the Licensing Authority by Orders dated 5/3/2010 in Writ Petition No. 6373 of 2011 and dated 17/3/2010 in Writ Petition No. 6383 of 2011. Both the Petitioners filed appeals against the orders refusing to grant licence. ... New Bombay Police Commi....

BHAGUBHAI AAPABHAI BORICHA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

India - High Court of Gujarat

J.B. PARDIWALA, VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI, JJ

of the Bombay Police Act . ... , 307, 436, 302, 427, 149 alternatively Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act . ... In Criminal Appeal No.1444 of 2014 the State has challenged the acquittal judgment and order dated 5.5.2014 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Sessions Case No.21 of 2010 from the charges levelled against him under Sections 120B ... are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 4....

Namdeo VS State of Maharashtra

2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 332 India - Bombay

S.S.SHINDE, V.M.DESHPANDE

The Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Baban KIsan Kulvade (2010(3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 348)and also in the case of Deepak Revachand and Talreja vs. State of Maharashtra (2008(1) Bom.C.R. ... Learned A.P.P., invited our attention to the exposition of Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Shivaji Anandrao Chede(2003 Bom.C.R. ... It is submitted that, it has come on record that, PW-5 admitted that, Shobha and Yashoda have their own houses and that Sunanda and her husband had been to t....

Ravikiran s/o Abasaheb Deshmukh VS Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad

2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 100 India - Bombay

V.R.KINGAONKAR

(g)**** ... (h)**** ... (i)**** ... (j)**** ... (j-1)has more than two children : ... Provided that, a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of ... the Bombay ... ... 5. ... Khamkar” 2010 (1) Bom.C.R. 136, a Division Bench of this Court held that restriction on number of children is to create awareness of danger of increasing population.

Raj Darshan Ventures VS The Joint Charity Commissioner

2011 0 Supreme(Bom) 16 India - Bombay

A.S.OKA

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale of-Application for-Property alienated as per condition in Resolution-Public ... ... Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale ... ... Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 36-Trust property-Sale ... Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra and Others (2007(3) Mh.L.J. 717: [2007(4) ALLMR 100 (F.B.)]). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex court in the case of Mehrwan Homi Irani & Anr. Vs. Charity Commissioner, B....

SupremeToday Landscape Ad

Filter by Legal Phrase

SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top