Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
Interpretation of a
contract, it is trite, is a matter for arbitrator to determine (see M/s.
Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Government of Kerala, AIR (1989) SC 890).
Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 providing for setting aside an
award is restrictive in its operation. Unless one or the other condition
contained in Section 30 is satisfied, an award cannot be set aside. The
arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final. The
Court is precluded from reappraising the evidence. Even in a case where the
award contains reasons, the interference therewith would still be not
available within the jurisdiction of the Court unless, of course, the
reasons are totally perverse or the judgment is based on a wrong
proposition of law. An error apparent on the face of the records would not
imply closer scrutiny of the merits of documents and materials on record.
U.P. State Electricity Board vs M/S Searsole Chemicals Limited on 21 February, 2001
Once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, the
Court will refrain itself from interfering [see U.P. State Electricity
Board v. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., [2001] 3 SCC 397 and ISPAT Engineering &
Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S.
City, Bokaro, [2001] 6 SCC 347].
Ispat Engineering And Foundry Works, ... vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. B.S. City, ... on 25 July, 2001
Once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is a plausible one, the
Court will refrain itself from interfering [see U.P. State Electricity
Board v. Searsole Chemicals Ltd., [2001] 3 SCC 397 and ISPAT Engineering &
Foundry Works, B.S. City, Bokaro v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S.
City, Bokaro, [2001] 6 SCC 347].
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
1