Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Modern Co-Operative Group Housing ... vs Bharat Bijlee Ltd. on 14 September, 2012 cites

M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999

22. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Society, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Arbitrator had rejected the Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, only Claim No. 4 of the Society had been allowed in the sum of Rs. 18.77 lakhs together with post-Award interest at 18% per annum. Relying on the decisions in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (6) SCALE 46; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions IV (2003) SLT 873; M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. AIR 1987 SC 81 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 2316, he submitted that the Arbitrator was the sole judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that the Arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact was no ground to challenge the Award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions on 31 July, 2003

22. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Society, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Arbitrator had rejected the Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, only Claim No. 4 of the Society had been allowed in the sum of Rs. 18.77 lakhs together with post-Award interest at 18% per annum. Relying on the decisions in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (6) SCALE 46; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions IV (2003) SLT 873; M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. AIR 1987 SC 81 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 2316, he submitted that the Arbitrator was the sole judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that the Arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact was no ground to challenge the Award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - Full Document

Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee vs Nilima Rani & Others on 17 October, 1969

23. Mr. Tiku submitted that an Award could be set aside only under one of the grounds under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act. He further submitted that the learned Arbitrator rightly drew the inference of BBL having waived the condition regarding payment of the 60% of the contractual amount by its own conduct. Reliance was placed on the decision in Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v. Smt. Nilima Rani 1969 (3) SCC 445.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

State Of Rahjasthan vs Puti Construction Co. Ltd on 16 September, 1994

30. The above minutes and correspondence show that the obligation of the Society to complete the basic civil infrastructural works was in fact not fulfilled even as on May 1993 in respect of one block, and as on August CS (OS) No. 317A of 2000 Page 13 of 16 1993 in respect of remaining. The question of BBL therefore being able to install the lifts without the above basic work being completed could not have arisen. Although this Court is not expected to "re-appreciate" the evidence, this is a case where the learned Arbitrator has completely ignored the evidence on record and has simply not referred to it. The finding of the learned Arbitrator that the preparatory work necessary for installation of the lift was completed on 16th March 1990, is not supported by the evidence on record. The above finding has been rendered ignoring the uncontroverted evidence on record. Although the scope of interference by the Court with an Award is limited, this is an instance, as explained in State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. (1994) 6 SCC 485, where "the error of finding of facts having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various possible viewpoints."
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 84 - G N Ray - Full Document
1