Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Dandasi Sahu vs State Of Orissa on 30 November, 1989

Board Of Trustees Of Port Of Mormugaor vs Asia Foundations And Constructions ... on 30 January, 1991

13. As regards the question of non-application of mind by the Umpire, it has to be seen that when the Umpire is not required to give any reasons for his award, the recitals in para 15 of his award showing what he has considered in making the award, apart from his high status and expertise in the field, would show that he has applied his mind to the relevant material on record in the Arbitration proceedings. These recitals would therefore satisfy the requirement in para 3 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Dandasi Sahu's case cited supra, even in which the Supreme Court has observed that the Arbitrator need not give any reason and even if he commits a mistake either in law or in fact in determining the matter referred to him, where such mistake does not appear on the face of the award, the same cannot be assailed. The Supreme Court has further observed in the said judgement that in view of the limitations upon the powers of the Court in interfering with the award of the Arbitrator under sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, the Court has to test the award with circumspection. It has then held in the facts of the said case that the amount awarded by the Arbitrator was so disproportionately high that it showed non-application of his mind amounting to legal misconduct. We shall consider the question of non-application of mind in this sense as urged on behalf of the appellant when we consider its case on Claim No. 1.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhasin Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 2 December, 1994

(11) It may not be necessary for me to refer to all the above cited judgments in detail. It will suffice to say that in the present case the award is vitiated as the arbitrator has not even referred to the claim made by the petitioner claimant and has awarded a sum of Rs.5,10,850.00 without reference to the relevant documents on record. This has obviously resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and is an act of mis- conduct on the part of the arbitrator. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dandasi Sahu Vs. State of Orissa (supra) has clearly held that : "THEaward could be interfered with only limited circumstances as provided under Sections 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act. In this situation we have to test the award with circumspection. Even with all the limitations on the powers of the court and probably because of these limitations, we have to hold that if the amount awarded was disproportionately high, having regard to the original claim made and the totality of the circumstances, it would certainly be a case where the arbitrator could be said to have not applied his mind amounting to legal misconduct."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Azizur Rehman Gulam And Anr vs Radio Restaurant And 7 Ors on 25 October, 2023

In support of his contention that such an Award would therefore be vulnerable to challenge, he placed reliance upon the following judgements namely Dandasi Sahu Vs. State of Orissa12 and Gati Limited Vs. Union of India 13. Basis this, he submitted that since the basis of the Arbitral Award was the Fifth Deed which was both unregistered and unstamped, the Arbitral Award was ex facie bad in law.
Bombay High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Kerala And Anr. vs E.A. Cheriyan Kunju on 5 June, 1996

If the award is disproportionately high having regard to the original claim made and the totality of the circumstances it would certainly be a case of non-application of mind amounting to misconduct and when the arbitrator is found to be guilty of legal misconduct, it may not be possible to set aside the award in part unless the affected part of the award is clearly severable from the rest of it ((1990) 1 SCC 214 : (AIR 1990 SC 1128), Dandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa). 'Misconduct' under Section 30(a) does not connote a moral lapse.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Agrawal Krishi Sewa Kendra vs Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. on 27 March, 2000

21. Similar question was again considered by the Supreme Court in case of Dandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa (AIR 1990 SC 1128) wherein it was observed in Para 3 that "Though the arbitrator is not bound to disclose as to what interpretation he has made and what inference he has derived from the documentary evidence, he is bound to refer in the award that he had considered all the documents placed before him no matter whether he relies on them or discards them from consideration. The arbitrator in his award ex facie does not mention that he had referred to or considered the documents placed before him in respect of the original claim."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A Mishra - Full Document

H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. vs Charan Singh And Company on 8 November, 2002

In Dandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa, it is held that though the Arbitrator was not bound to disclose as to what interpretation he has made and what inference he has derived from the documentary evidence, he is bound to refer in the Award that he had considered all the documents placed before him no matter whether he relies on them or discards them from consideration. The Arbitrator in his Award in that case ex facie did not mention that he had referred to or considered the documents placed before him in respect of the original claim and for that reason the Award was held vitiated by non-application of mind of the Arbitrator. Both these decisions are also of no assistance to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-contractor to hold the Award in the present case vitiated or illegal on any sound and justiciable, ground.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - L S Panta - Full Document

T.A. Choudhary vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 1 May, 2003

In Dandasi Sahu v. State of Orissa , this Court held that the arbitrator need not give any reasons. The award could be impeached only in limited circumstances as provided under Sections 16 and 30 of the Act. If the award is disproportionately high having regard to the original claim made and the totality of the circumstances it would certainly be a case of non-application of mind amounting to legal misconduct and it is not possible to set aside only invalid party while retaining the valid part. In other words the doctrine of severability was held inapplicable in such a situation. It is, therefore, clear that the word misconduct in Section 30(a) does not necessarily comprehend or include misconduct of fraudulent or improper conduct or moral lapse but does comprehend and include actions on the part of the Arbitrator, which on the face of the Award, are opposed to all rational and reasonable principles resulting in excessive Award or unjust result or the like circumstances which tend to show non-application of the mind to the material facts placed before the Arbitrator or Umpire. In truth it points to fact that the Arbitrator or Umpire had not applied his mind and not adjudicated upon the matter, although the Award professes to determine them. Such situation would amount to misconduct. In other words, if the Arbitrator or Umpire is found to have not applied his mind to the matters in controversy and yet, has adjudicated upon those matters in law, there can be no adjudication made on them. The Arbitrator/Umpire may not be guilty of any act which can possible be construed as indicative or partiality of unfairness. Misconduct is often used, in a technical sense denoting irregularity and not guilty of any moral turpitude, that is, in the sense of non-application of the mind to the relevant aspects of the dispute in its adjudication.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 73 - Cited by 6 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next