Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.67 seconds)
Sharma& Asssociates,Contractor.Pvt ... vs Progressive Construction Ltd & Anr. on 3 December, 2024
cites
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
South East Asia Marine Engineering And ... vs Oil India Limited on 11 May, 2020
39. The Defendant No. 1 in its Written Submission has placed reliance
on Associated Engineer v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1991)
4 SCC 93; Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd v. Eastern Engineering
Enterprises and Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 283; and South East Asia Marine
Engineering and Constructions Limited (SEAMEC Ltd.) v. Oil India
Limited. (2020) 5 SCC 164 to assert that Arbitrator cannot traverse beyond
the scope of the terms of Agreement of the Sub-Contract dated 18.04.1989
and is liable to be set aside.
M/S S.D.Shinde Tr.Partner vs Govt.Of Maharashtra . on 22 August, 2023
44. The Apex Court in S.D. Shinde Tr. Parnter vs. Govt. of Maharashtra
and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1045 held that the Courts must be
conscious that the Arbitrator is the sole Judge of facts and the Award has to
be approached with the desire to support it rather than destroy it by calling
illegal, since such an Award is "de praemissis" as stated by the Apex Court
in Santa Sila Devi and Another vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Others, AIR
1963 SC 1677.
Smt. Santa Sila Devi And Another vs Dhirendra Nath Sen And Others on 26 April, 1963
44. The Apex Court in S.D. Shinde Tr. Parnter vs. Govt. of Maharashtra
and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1045 held that the Courts must be
conscious that the Arbitrator is the sole Judge of facts and the Award has to
be approached with the desire to support it rather than destroy it by calling
illegal, since such an Award is "de praemissis" as stated by the Apex Court
in Santa Sila Devi and Another vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Others, AIR
1963 SC 1677.
M/S. Harish Chandra & Company vs State Of U.P. Thr. Superintending Eng on 8 September, 2016
In the case of Harish Chandra and Company vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2016) 9 SCC 478 while considering the scope of Section 30 and
33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 it was held that the High Court‟s enquiry
should be confined to whether any legal misconduct is committed by the
arbitrator and if so how and in what manner. The High Court cannot act as if
Appeal has arisen directly against the Award.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs L.K. Ahuja on 12 April, 2004
In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs. L.K.Ahuja, (2004) 5 SCC 109, the
Supreme Court further observed that absence of evidence for the purpose of
interference with an Award must be apparent on the face of the record.