Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 306 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923

The Reserve Bank Of India, Trivandrum vs Raj Engineering Contractors on 20 July, 1990

Referring to the two cases, viz., Champsey Bhara's case and F. R. Absaldom's case, Lord Justice Somervell in Blaider & Company's case said that one on one side of the line and one on the other and that His Lordship had no doubt that in the case considered by His Lordship (D. S. Blaimber & Co. Ltd. v. Leopold New-borne (London) Ltd.) that the court was not entitled to look at the contract. His Lordship said that "it is referred to generally in the recital and I do not think it would make any difference if it had been referred to generally in the award or in matters introductory to the finding which was not in form a recital. I do not find here that the learned arbitrators have on the face of their award based their decision on the construction of any particular term in the contract".
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. on 19 December, 2001

"(16) The extent of the jurisdiction of the court to set aside an award on the ground of an error in making the award is well-defined. The award of an arbitrator may be set aside on the ground of an error on the face thereof only when in the award or in any document incorporated with it, as for instance, a note appended by the arbitrators, stating the reasons for his decision, there is found some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which is erroneous -- Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj _ Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co., Ltd. 50 Ind App 324 = AIR 1923 PC 66. If, however, a specific question, is submitted to the arbitrator and he answers it, the fact that the answer involves an erroneous decision in point of law, does not make the award bad on its face so as to permit of its being set aside, In re King and Duveen, 1913-2 KB 32, and Govt. of Kelantanv. Duff Development Co., Ltd. 1923 AC 395.
Bombay High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 25 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Maharashtra State Co-Operative Cotton ... vs Ralli Bros. And Coney Ltd. And Ors. on 11 July, 1991

"In this case, the arbitrator gave no reasons for the award. There is no legal proposition which is the basis of the award far less a legal proposition which is erroneous. There is no appeal from the verdict of the arbitrator. The Court cannot review, in such circumstances, the award and correct any mistake in the adjudication by the arbitrator (see (Champsey Bhara & Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.), 50 Indian Appeals, 224 : A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 66 and the observations of Bachawat, J., in the case of Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd, Indore, of this Court."
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Government Of A.P. And Anr. vs Sri Venkateswara Construction Co., ... on 16 May, 2002

88. Thus, keeping in view the principles laid down in Champsay Bara's case (supra), Jeevaraj Bhai's case (supra), Kapor Nilokher's case (supra), Tarapore and Company's case (supra) Alopi Prasad 's case (supra), Sudarsan Trading's case (supra), U.P. Hotel's case (supra) State of Rajasthan's case (supra), Hindustan Construction Company's case (supra), Steel Authority of India Limited's case (supra), Radhakrishna's case (supra), H.P. State Electricity Board's case (supra), Rajasthan Mines's case (supra), Ramalinga Reddy's case (supra), Subba Naidu's case (supra) and the conclusion reached by Division Bench in Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nizamabad v. M/s. Progressive Engineering Company, Hyderabad, (D.B), more specifically 4, 5 and 6 cases.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 60 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Union Of India (Uoi) vs Premchand Satram Das And Anr. on 11 May, 1951

"The rule in truth applies to the ordinary case where, in the words of Lord Dunedin in 'Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.', (1923) A C 480, at p. 489), the submission refers 'to the arbitrator the whole question whether it depends on law or on fact. To be contrasted with such cases there is the special type of case where a different rule is in force, so that the court will not interfere even though it is manifest on the face of the award that the arbitrator has gone wrong in law. This is so when what is referred to the arbitrator is not the whole question, whether involving both fact or law, but only some specific question of law in express terms as the separate question submitted; that 7s to say, where a joint of law is submitted as such, that is, as a point" of law, which as all that the arbitrator is required to decide, not fact being, quoad that submission, in dispute".
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Asia Publishing House vs John Wiley And Sons, Inc. on 18 August, 1967

An award made by an arbitrator is conclusive as a judgment between the parties and the Court is entitled to set aside are award if the arbitrator has misconducted himself in the proceedings or when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act or where an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid (s. 80 of the Arbitration Act). An award may be set aside by the Court on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and agreement it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. As observed in Champaeij Bhara and Co. v. Jmraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Buildings Construction ... vs U P State Bridge Corporation Ltd on 27 February, 2026

67. The observations of Lord Dunedin in Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd.19, accepted and adopted by the Apex Court in Union of India V. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd. 20, has been noted therein, to the effect that under the scheme of the 1940 Act, the Court had no jursidiction to investigate into the merits of the case or to examine the documentary or oral evidence in the record for the purposes of finding out whether or not the Arbitrator has committed an error of law. The Court as a matter of fact, cannot substitute its own evaluation and come to the conclusion that the Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties.
Gujarat High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. on 17 August, 1983

"An error of law on 'the face of the award means that you can find *in. the award or a document actually incorporated thereto. as. for instance. a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment. some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous (See Lord Dunedin in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivrai Balloo Co., 1923 AC 480 : (AIR 1923 PC 661.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raipur Development Authority Etc. Etc vs Chokhamal Contractors Etc. Etc on 4 May, 1989

s. 30 of the Arbitration Act. An award may be set aside by the Court on the ground of error on the face of the award, but an award is not invalid merely because by a process of infer- ence and argument it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion. As observed in Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Ballo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd., L.R. 50 I.A. 324 at p. 331:
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 138 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Tinnevelly Mills Co. Ltd. vs T.A.K. Mohideen Pichai Taraganar And ... on 4 October, 1928

The basis of the judgments sought to be reviewed is not a proposition of law which is obviously erroneous as explained in the first of the two alternatives stated by their Lordships in Champey Bhara and Co. v. Jeevraj Balloo Spining and Weaving Co. On the other hand, it clearly falls within the latter alternative. To see if the company's contention is sound we have to consider what the terms of the contract were between the shareholders and the company as laid down in the rules of the company and then see what their right under those rules is. An error of law which has to be deduced from such on investigation and on a point which is open to doubt is not error of law apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Rule 1, 0.47. No ground has therefore been made out for entertaining these review petitions and they are accordingly dismissed with costs of respondent 1 Rs. 30 in each.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next