M/S. NAV BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO. vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — C.A. No. 2501/2001

Case under Section XV. Status: Disposed.

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

Section XV

Petitioner(s)

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

    Adv. APPELLANT-IN-PERSON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. MILIND KUMAR

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. 01-May-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2501/2001

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case