M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO. vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — C.A. No. 2501/2001
Case under Section XV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010074322000
Filing Date
01-May-2000
Registration No
C.A. No. 2501/2001
Diary Number
7432/2000
Order Date
08-Jan-2010
Document Type
Judgment - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO.
Adv. APPELLANT-IN-PERSON
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Adv. MILIND KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Jan-2010
Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Apr-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jan-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Aug-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Feb-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Oct-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Aug-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Apr-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Oct-2005
Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Oct-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Aug-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Aug-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Aug-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Aug-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Jul-2005
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Mar-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-May-2000
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 2501/2001
Summary of C.A. No. 002501/2001 The Supreme Court upheld an arbitral award in a construction contract dispute between Nav Bharat Construction Company and the State of Rajasthan for the Bhimsagar Dam project. The Court rejected the contractor's objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the Court retained jurisdiction to entertain the award filed by the newly appointed Umpire as a continuation of earlier proceedings. The Court dismissed most of the contractor's 39 claims, barring claims 2 and 26 based on prior judicial findings that these were contrary to contract terms, and rejected the claim for compound interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts