Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Durga Prosad Chamria vs Anardeyi Sethani on 28 May, 1946

I.T.C. Limited vs Pradeep Anand And Ors. on 3 July, 2006

Similarly, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Durga Prosad Chamria v. Anardeyi Sethani's case (supra) dealt with the matter where a suit was pending, issues were framed Page 2441 including question of law and then the matter was referred to arbitration. The principles of the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case on the ground that in the present case also the issues had been framed. No doubt, issues had been framed including the legal issue, but there was never any specific reference made to the Arbitrator, but, on the other hand, the proceedings were withdrawn by ITC. One of the clinching factors is that the stand of Anands themselves before the Arbitrator that the Arbitrator should not decide this question as the withdrawal of earlier proceedings amounted to an estoppel against ITC from raising the issues.
Delhi High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - S K Kaul - Full Document

O.N.G.C. vs Anil Construction Co. And Anr. on 6 April, 2000

11. Thus, it is clear from these two subsections that interim award can be given by the arbitrator and interim award so given shall be deemed to be an award. In other words, the award shall include interim award as well. Shri Mehta however, contended that even if under Section 27, the arbitrator is authorised to give interim award, the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 27 is to permit and authorise the arbitrator to give only one interim award and not more than one interim award. He argued that the word interim award under Section 27 makes the intention of the legislature clear and the legislature did not intend to authorise the arbitrator to render more than one Interim award otherwise, the word should have been "interim awards" and not "interim award". However, this contention of Shri Mehta does not seem to be acceptable. In our opinion, the arbitrators have unfettered discretion to pass interim awards so long as the arbitration agreement does not provide otherwise. A similar view was taken by the Madras High Court in Allagu Pillai v. Veluchami, AIR 1923 Madras 576 and by the Calcutta High Court in Durga Prasad Chamaria v. Anardevi Sethani. AIR 1947 Cal 75. The arbitration agreement before us does not provide otherwise, Consequently, the authority of the arbitrator can hardly be challenged with success. The position under the Arbitration Act of 1899 was altogether different. There was no provision either under the Arbitration Act of 1899 nor under second schedule of Code of Civil Procedure enabling the arbitrator to make interim award. Under the old law, award was required to be entire and complete and unless there was an agreement between the parties which authorised the arbitrator to make several awards, it was not competent for him to make award piecemeal. It was not permissible under the old law for him to give provisional or incomplete award which did not finally decide the matter in dispute and if he did so, it was not treated as an award and it could not be filed for the basis of any proceedings thereon but this position has been reversed under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the order of the arbitrator giving second interim award does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor it renders the final award invalid or illegal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - D C Srivastava - Full Document

Bejoy Singh vs Bilasroy And Co. on 11 January, 1951

34. Mr. Meyer further contended that there was an error of law & such error appears on the face of the award. Mr. Meyer contended that the finding in Para 1 of the award that there was no free market on the contract the due dates & the first free market available thereafter was 1-10-1946, is the basis of the award & as that finding is not sufficient to support the award there is an error of law on the face of the award. This contention must be rejected. The error of law on the face of the award must be some legal proposition, which is the basis of the award & which is erroneous & which can be found in the award or in a document actually incorporated therewith. It is not permissible to refer to any other document to show that the award is erroneous. Champsay Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co, Ltd., 50 I. A. 324, Saleh Mohamed Umer Dossal v. Nathoomal Kessamal, 54 I. A. 427 & Durga Prasad v. Anardevi Sethani, 50 C. W. N. 880. No legal proposition is stated in the present award & it cannot be said that there is an error of law on the face of the award. Besides, the legal proposition must be plainly stated, & the Ct. cannot act upon a mere surmise that the Arbitrator was acting upon a supposed legal proposition.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Salween Timber And Construction ... vs Union Of India on 3 March, 1967

(47) Mr. Parkash Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent- Government referred us to the decision in Durga Prasad Chamriya v. Anardevi Sethani. But, in that decision it was held that where the mtoion is to set aside an award for the matter appearing on its face, the Court is debarred from considering any matter which does nto appear in the award itself or in documents incorporated in it, and that where an award has referred to certain documents and after construing them has arrived at certain conclusions, the documents can be said to have been incorporated in the award. The said decision cannto be of any help to the respondent-Government as the award in the present case did nto refer to Ex. C. W. 5/1.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - I D Dua - Full Document
1