Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.03 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Limited vs J.C. Budharaja, Government And Mining ... on 1 September, 1999
In support of the said contention the counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budhiraja, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the arbitrator derives the authority from the contract and if he acts in manifest disregard of the contract, the award given by him would be an arbitrary one. It was also held in the said decision that his existence depends upon the agreement and his function is to act within the limits of the said agreement and that even if arbitrator has jurisdiction to entertain the claim, he may be prohibited by the terms of the contract to pass award on specific item and in such case award passed on that item ignoring the prohibition would amount to jurisdiction error.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
Reference could also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises, 1999 (6) SCALE 92 that if an award is passed by the arbitrator, which is against the stipulations and prohibitions contained under the contract between the parties, the said award is not in accordance with law and is required to be set aside. Since reference was made to the provisions of Clauses 55,57 and 66 of the agreement, it would be necessary to extract the said clauses:-
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
In the case of G.C. Roy (supra) the Supreme Court has held that where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute along with claim for principal amount or independently is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have power to award interest pendente lite.
State Of Orissa vs B.N. Agarwala on 24 November, 1992
In B.N. Aggarwala's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that there can be no doubt that if the terms of the contract expressly stipulate that no interest would be payable then, notwithstanding the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978, an arbitrator would not get the jurisdiction to award interest. In the present case, I have extracted the provisions of Clause 20.1 which categorically prohibits payment of interest on any amount due to the contractor against earnest money, security deposit, interim or final bills or any other payments due under the contract. Therefore, the said clause prohibits payment of interest on any amount which is found due and payable under the aforesaid contract. Whatever interest is levied by the learned tribunal is the amount which according to it was due and payable to the contractor. Therefore, on the aforesaid sum found due and payable, no interest could have been awarded by the arbitral tribunal in view of Clause 20.1 and in the light of ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. There exists between the parties an agreement which prohibits grant of interest. The Supreme Court has also clearly held that if the terms of the contract expressly stipulate that no interest would be payable, then the arbitrator would not get the jurisdiction or right to award interest even notwithstanding the provisions of the Interest Act. Power to grant interest by the arbitrator emanates from the statutory provisions but the same is always subject to the agreement between the parties as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. In that view of the matter the award passed by the learned tribunal awarding interest at the aforesaid rate to the petitioner is found to be in violation of the agreed terms and conditions. The aforesaid prohibitory clause applies in full force and, therefore, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court the award in respect of the aforesaid claim towards payment of interest also stands set aside.
1