Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs M/S Engineering Development ... on 10 December, 2015

In Baron International Ltd. vs. Startron Video P. Ltd. And Anr. OMP No. 124/2009 decided on 25.02.2010 and 2008(3) R.A.J. 612(Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Shiv Khullar inter­alia, it was observed that "a commonly held belief that while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act, the Court cannot look into the evidence before the Arbitrator also needs to be clarified. There is a difference in re­appreciating evidence and considering whether material evidence has been ignored. Whereas the former would be an activity prohibited while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act for the reason an Arbitrator is a chosen forum by the parties to conclude rival issues of fact between the parties, the latter would be an activity to find out whether learned Arbitrator has acted within his mandate for the reason the mandate of the Arbitrator is to decide on facts after considering all the relevant facts and not ignoring the same."
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S India Infoline Ltd vs Praveen Kumar Singh (Constitutent) on 7 October, 2015

5. Counsel for objector also placed reliance upon Baron International Ltd. vs. Startron Video P. Ltd. And Anr. OMP No. 124/2009 decided on 25.02.2010 and 2008(3) R.A.J. 612(Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Shiv Khullar wherein inter­alia, it was held that "a commonly held belief that while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act, the Court cannot look into the evidence before the Arbitrator also needs to be clarified. There is a difference in re­appreciating evidence and considering whether material evidence has been ignored. Whereas the former would be an activity prohibited while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act for the reason an Arbitrator is a chosen forum by the parties to conclude rival issues of fact between the parties, the latter would be an activity to find out whether learned Arbitrator has acted within his mandate for the reason the mandate of the Arbitrator is to decide on facts after considering all the relevant facts and not ignoring the same."
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1