Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth And Others vs Chintamanrao Balaji And Others on 19 November, 1963
L. Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman v. Darwing
Ld., [1942] A.C. 356' Union of India v. kishorilal, AIR 1959
SC 1362; Renusager Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Company, [1984] 4 SCC 679; Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR
1965 SC 214; Gobardhan Das v. Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689,
692; Thawardas v. Union of India., AIR 1955 SC 468; Omanhene
v. Chief Obeng, AIR 1934 P.C. 185, 188; F.R. Absalom.
Renusagar Power Company Ltd vs General Electric Company And Anr on 16 August, 1984
L. Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman v. Darwing
Ld., [1942] A.C. 356' Union of India v. kishorilal, AIR 1959
SC 1362; Renusager Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Company, [1984] 4 SCC 679; Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR
1965 SC 214; Gobardhan Das v. Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689,
692; Thawardas v. Union of India., AIR 1955 SC 468; Omanhene
v. Chief Obeng, AIR 1934 P.C. 185, 188; F.R. Absalom.
Gobardhan Das vs Lachhmi Ram And Ors. on 24 March, 1954
L. Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman v. Darwing
Ld., [1942] A.C. 356' Union of India v. kishorilal, AIR 1959
SC 1362; Renusager Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Company, [1984] 4 SCC 679; Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR
1965 SC 214; Gobardhan Das v. Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689,
692; Thawardas v. Union of India., AIR 1955 SC 468; Omanhene
v. Chief Obeng, AIR 1934 P.C. 185, 188; F.R. Absalom.
Seth Thawardas Pherumal vs The Union Of India(And Connected ... on 24 March, 1955
L. Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman v. Darwing
Ld., [1942] A.C. 356' Union of India v. kishorilal, AIR 1959
SC 1362; Renusager Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric
Company, [1984] 4 SCC 679; Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR
1965 SC 214; Gobardhan Das v. Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689,
692; Thawardas v. Union of India., AIR 1955 SC 468; Omanhene
v. Chief Obeng, AIR 1934 P.C. 185, 188; F.R. Absalom.
Needle Industries Ltd. By Secretary And ... vs The Additional Commissioner For ... on 28 October, 1980
In the instant case, the umpire decided matters
strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He outstepped the
confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the
designated area. He diagressed far away from the allotted
task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or
misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of
what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his
jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question,
disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his
authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of
provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the
principles state in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation
Commission., [1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and
Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v.
Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L.
Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The Managing
Director.
M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972
In the instant case, the umpire decided matters
strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He outstepped the
confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the
designated area. He diagressed far away from the allotted
task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or
misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of
what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his
jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question,
disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his
authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of
provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the
principles state in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation
Commission., [1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and
Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v.
Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L.
Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The Managing
Director.