STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — C.A. No. 2500/2001

Case under Section XV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010083862000

Filing Date

12-May-2000

Registration No

C.A. No. 2500/2001

Diary Number

8386/2000

Order Date

08-Jan-2010

Document Type

Judgment - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. MILIND KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

    Adv. RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jan-2010

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 08-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 25-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 20-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 19-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 18-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 11-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 21-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 09-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 29-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 23-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 16-Oct-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 14-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 07-Apr-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 04-Oct-2005

    Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 04-Oct-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 24-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 11-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 10-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 09-Aug-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 28-Jul-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 28-Mar-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 12-May-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2500/2001

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Nav Bharat Construction Company (C.A. No. 2500/2001) The Supreme Court upheld an arbitral award in a construction contract dispute for Bhimsagar Dam, where the contractor failed to complete work on time. The Court confirmed the Umpire's rejection of most claims (including two specifically identified claims that had been elaborately considered and rejected in a prior judgment), finding no grounds to set aside the award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as the Court's review jurisdiction is non-appellate and cannot re-examine the arbitrator's factual conclusions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case