McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

11 SCC 181Reported decision2006#13268 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.

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

ITA/194/2022HC Delhi10 Sept 2024

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

Section 21Section 34Section 9

…ST Signing Date:22.12.2025 18:04:59 Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) (COMM) 194/2022 Page 13 of 26 SCC 445] ; and McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] ) 13. It is relevant to note that after the 2015 Amendment to Section 34, the above position stands somewhat modified. Pursuant to the insertion of Explanation 1 to Section 34(2), the scope of contravention of Indian public policy has been modified to the extent that it now means fraud or corruption in the making of the award, violation o…

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/274/2022HC Telangana02 Feb 2023

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34

…sthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 552] , adverting to the previous decisions of this Court in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran [Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306] , wherein it has been observed that an Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if a term of the contract has been construed in a reasonable manner, then the award ought not t…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

ITAT/81/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

For Respondent: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv

Section 34Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

…India reported in 2009 SCC Online Cal 2274, paragraphs 5 and 6; iii. Government of Kerala v. SomDatt Builders Ltd. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Ker 134, paragraph 19; iv. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Corporation Ltd. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181, paragraph 52; v. Venture Global Engg. v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 660, paragraph 40; vi. Venture Global Engg. LLC v. Tech Mahindra Ltd. reported in (2018) 1 SCC 656, paragraph 120. 23. Mr. Kohli alternatively argues that the aforesaid actions give rise to justifiable doubts, within the meaning of Section 12…

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

ITA/264/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

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

Section 34

…rimarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do. 43. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,(2006) 11 SCC 181 this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 225-26, paras 112-13) “112. It is trite that the terms of the contract can be expressed or implied. The conduct of the parties would also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of a contract. The construction of the contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having reg…

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

ITA/162/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

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

Section 34

…as the liability of the petitioner to pay for the tax liability of foreign consultants/personnel.” 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 or…

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

ITA/71/2018HC Delhi23 Jan 2018

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

Section 34

…primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do. 43. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.,(2006) 11 SCC 181 this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 225- 26, paras 112-13) “112. It is trite that the terms of the contract can be expressed or implied. The conduct of the parties would also be a relevant factor in the matter of construction of a contract. The construction of the contract agreement is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators having rega…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

ITTA/6/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Section 11Section 37

…frustrated.‛ 19. In Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 236, adverting to the previous decisions of this Court in McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181 and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran reported in (2012) 5 SCC 306], wherein it has been observed that an Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if a term of the contract has been construed in a reasonable manner, then the award ought not to be set aside on this ground, it has been…