Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

…e set aside if it is patently illegal. It was, however, clarified that illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature, it cannot be held that award is against public policy. 67. In Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, this Court held that an award would be patently illegal, if it is contrary to: (a) substantive provisions of law of India; (b) provisions of the 1996 Act; and (c) terms of the contract [See also three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd., (2022) 2 SCC 275]. The Court clarified that if an award is…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…f the award’. The Supreme Court and High Courts have time and again affirmed that ‘patent illegality’ is an illegality which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be of a trivial nature. [Ref.: Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49 and Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India and Others, (2023) 15 SCC 472]. Proviso to Section 34(2A) itself stipulates that an award shall not be set aside merely on erroneous application of law. Division Bench of this Court in Aksh Optifibre Limited v. Nantong Siber Communication Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4011,…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1 vs. M/S CLC & SONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

…earned Single Judge went on to hear the petition as if it was hearing an appeal, and hence, travelled outside the mandate of Section 34 of the A&C Act. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Associate Builders v DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49. Submissions by the learned senior counsel for the respondents: 19. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondents, while defending the Impugned Order, submits that the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator being perverse, arbitrary and Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:22.12.2025 18:04:59 Signature Not Veri…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3 vs. A.R. LEASING PVT. LTD

Bench: The Sole Arbitrator Seeking Supply Of Complete Set Of The Proceedings Wherein The Respondent No.3 In Paragraph 4 States As Under: “4. That Now, The Applicant/Respondent No. 3 Is Not The Director Of The Respondent No. 1 Co. & Is Only A Guarantor In The Instant Case.”

…e to be drawn therefrom. In the present case, the learned counsel has been unable to show how the finding of the Arbitrator can be said to be so perverse or unreasonable so as to shock the conscience of the Court. 9. In Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49, Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, has held as under:- “33. It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the “public policy” test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts ha…

PRO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL - 2) vs. TANVIR COLLECTIONS PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…nding based on interpretation of the Agreement, which in my opinion is correct and cannot by any stretch said to be unreasonable or perverse, cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act. In Associate Builders vs. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “42. In the 1996 Act, this principle is substituted by the “patent illegality” principle which, in turn, contains three subheads: xxxx 42.3. (c) Equally, the third subhead of patent illegality is really a contravention of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration Act, which reads as under: “28. Rules applicable…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI-08, vs. M/S S. CHAND & CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…6. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in „Mcdermott International Inc vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.‟, (2006) 11 SCC 181 and the later judgment in „Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority‟, (2015) 3 SCC 49 in both of which the Court held that the decision as to the construction or interpretation of the terms of the contract fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitrator and that the error, if any, cannot, in our opinion, of such interpretation ordinarily ought not to be corrected or interfered with. The NHAI has more or less reiterated its s…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI vs. DHARA VEGETABLE OIL & FOODS CO. LTD.(NOW MERGED WITH MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

…of the Arbitral Tribunal and in the case of the exercise of power under Section 34 of the Act, this Court cannot set aside the award only on the ground that another interpretation to the contract may be possible. 24. In Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49, Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, has held as under:- “33. It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the “public policy” test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has…

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…rect or perverse. In any case, the Arbitral Tribunal being the final judge of the evidence led before it, it is not for this Court to re-appreciate the same as if sitting in a Court of appeal. In Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court has held as under: “33. It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the “public policy” test to an arbitration award, it does not act as a court of appeal and consequently errors of fact cannot be corrected. A possible view by the arbitrator on facts has necessarily to pass muster as the arbitrator is the…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XVIII vs. PRAVEEN SAXENA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

…the learned arbitrator has gone against the fundamental policy of O.M.P. (COMM.) 37/2016 Page 8 of 30 law. He cited Associate Builders V. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49 says. Coming to each of the heads contained in the Saw Pipes judgment, we will first deal with the head "fundamental policy of Indian Law". It has already been seen from the Renusagar judgment that violation of the Foreign Exchange Act and disregarding orders of superior courts in India would be regarded as being contrary to the fundamen…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

…nding of the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has given reasons for the Award in favour of the respondent, based on the appreciation of the evidence led before him. The same cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. 9. In Associate Builders v. DDA (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court, after analyzing the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, has held as under:- OMP (COMM.) No.545/2016 Page 8 “33. It must clearly be understood that when a court is applying the “public policy” test to an arbitration award, it…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-DELHI -2 vs. BAUSCH AND LOMB EYE CARE INDIA PVT LTD

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed and the amount awarded is

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…O.M.P. (COMM) 62/2016 & 295/2016 Page 1 of 9 $~30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 62/2016 ROENTGEN ONCOLOGIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate with Mr Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr Milan Deep Singh and Ms Anubha Goel, Advocates. versus DR KIRTI JAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr Mrigank Prabhakar, Mr Aditya Samaddal and Mr M. R. Shamshad, Advocates. AND + O.M.P. (COMM) 295…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

The appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…pal Mohinderpal & Anr. (iii) AIR 1995 SC 2423 Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Engineering Constructions Corporation Ltd. FAO (OS) No.677/2015 & conn.matters Page 27 of 30 (iv) (2015) 3 SCC 49 Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority (v) 2015 (12) SCALE 370 Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Apeejay Shipping Ltd. (vi) (1994) 6 SCC 485 State of Rajasthan Vs. Puri Construction Co.Ltd. (vii) AIR 1989 SC 890 M/s.Sudarsan Trading Co. Vs. The Govt. Of Kerala & Anr. (viii) 2014 (3) ARBLR 116 (Delhi) Delhi State Industrial & Infrastruc…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2) vs. SATKAR ROADLINES PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ADEN MARKETING PVT. LTD.)

Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed and the amount awarded is

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…O.M.P. (COMM) 62/2016 & 295/2016 Page 1 of 9 $~30 & 31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 62/2016 ROENTGEN ONCOLOGIC SOLUTIONS PVT LTD AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr Abhinav Vasisht, Senior Advocate with Mr Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr Milan Deep Singh and Ms Anubha Goel, Advocates. versus DR KIRTI JAIN ..... Respondent Through: Mr Mrigank Prabhakar, Mr Aditya Samaddal and Mr M. R. Shamshad, Advocates. AND + O.M.P. (COMM) 295…