Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Mysore Manufacturers And Traders (Mmt) vs Karnataka Elect. Board (Keb) on 4 October, 1996

Grid Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. vs Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. on 10 February, 1998

In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the (sic) Court in Mysore Manufacturers and Traders v. Karnataka Elect. Board, AIR 1997 Karnataka 210. In paragraph 12 learned single Judge was of the view that when arbitration is sought not on the basis of an arbitration agreement between the parties but on the basis of a statutory provision in another enactment, then by virtue of Section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, statutory provision will have to be deemed as an arbitration agreement and in such a case, Sections 32 and 33 would get attracted. But Section 46 of that Act is not per se applicable to all statutory arbitrations if the provisions of the old Arbitration Act are inconsistent with the provisions of the enactment under which arbitration is sought. I am in respectful agreement with the above ratio.
Orissa High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - S N Phukan - Full Document

Karnataka Electricity Board vs Bharath Conductors on 13 August, 1997

Mr. Gupta has pointed out to me that this decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported in MYSORE & TRADERS v. KEB, . The dispute in that case once again was for compensation on the ground that the Board had used faulty equipment and it was anologous to the decision of the Supreme Court decision referred to by me supra which was why the learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the Civil Court could restrain the claimants from taking the matter to arbitration. One needs to observe here that there is a difference between a situation wherein damages or compensation is claimed for a wrongful act and the present case wherein a contract exists between the parties which contract itself provides for resolution of all disputes through arbitration. To my mind, the bar that is pleaded on the basis of the two decisions will not come in the way of the respt. No. 1. Mr. Gupta also drew my attention to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1997(2) SUP 265 wherein the Supreme Court pointed out that arbitrators being a creature of agreement must operate within the four corners of the contract and that they cannot undermine what is ruled out or prescribed by the terms of the agreement. Learned counsel submitted that if the contract iself provides for an escalation limited at 20% that no arbitrator can go beyond that limit and that therefore, the entire claim put forward by the respt.No. 1 is completely beyond the scope of any arbitration proceeding and that this is an additional ground on which the Board can contend that no useful purpose would be served by going through any such exercise. This argument does appear very convincing but I need to point out that there is a flaw in this argument in so far as the baisc dispute as I understood it, is the question as to whether at all the parties are bound by the plus or minus 20% provision or whether in the facts and circumstances of the case these parameters do not apply to them. That precisely is the real crucy of the matter. Since that issue will have to be resolved by which ever forum that hears the dispute, I refrain from making any comments with regard to this issue on merits but I need to point out that at the stage of approaching the grievance redressal forum that it is premature for the Board to contend that any of the provisions are sacrosanct and that they do or do not apply. That issue according to me is open and that is precisely what will have to be decided by the appropriate forum.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1