Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (2.66 seconds)Section 5 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Rohtas Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Rohtas Industries Staff Union And Ors on 18 December, 1975
In Rohtas Industries Limited v. Rohtas Industries Staff Union, where the Apex Court was concerned with an award under S. 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was observed that there was a need for a speaking order where considerable numbers are affected in their substantial rights. It was further reiterated that in such a situation a speaking order may well be a facet of natural justice or fair procedure. In Dewan Singh v. ' ckampat Singh, , the Apex Court reiterated that the proceedings before the arbitrators were quasi-judicial proceedings and they must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It was, therefore, obligatory to give reasons.
Rai Bahadur Basakha Singh & Sons ... vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceutical Ltd. on 5 January, 1979
21. Basakha Singh and Sons v. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical , Limited, in substance, is that the scope of the arbitral proceedings is a condition to the matter pleaded and referred in the petition under section 20 of the Arbitration Act and the Arbitrator has to determine only those differences arising between the parties that are referred and not the matters which arose but not pleaded in the application.
Sherbanubai Jafferbhoy vs Hooseinbhoy Abdoolabhoy on 24 September, 1947
In Sherbanubai v. Hooseinbhoy, AIR 35 1948 Bom. 292, it was that the Court does not give up its supervision over conduct of reference and the Arbitrator must act judicially and determine such disputes given by order of reference. The Arbitrator assuming wide powers and flouting the provisions of reference amounts to legal misconduct. When a Court of Law refers a matter to an arbitrator, it substitutes a domestic forum in place of itself. But that domestic forum has got to act judicially. Arbitrators must perform judicial functions observing the fundamental rules which govern judicial proceedings within the framework of reference.
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Prannath Vishwanath Rawlley on 12 August, 1977
In Orissa Mining Corporation v. P.V. Rawlley, , the Apex Court held that "when an agreement is filed in Court and order of reference is made under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act,-1940, then the claim as a result of the order of reference is limited to a particular relief and the arbitrator cannot enlarge the scope of the reference and entertain fresh claims without a further order of reference from the Court."
Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991
In Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, , the Apex Court held thus:-
Nagar Palika, Mirzapur vs The Mirzapur Elect. Supply Co. Ltd. on 28 August, 1990
27. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 relying on a decision in Nagar Palika, Mirzapur v Mirzapur Elect. Supply Co. Ltd., contended that when the award passed by the arbitrator is fully conscious of the dispute, no fault can be found with that a ward. That, was a case where the award did mention of arbitrator being conscious of the disputes raised before him and has passed the award fully conscious of the dispute and it was a case by consent of parties all the five heads between the parties were taken cognizance by the arbitrator. It was a case of ignoring certain disputes under certain head. There, the appellant's grievance was that the arbitrator had ignored to decide the heads of disputes raised by it which is not the same factual situation in this case. The contention does not merit consideration.
R.T. Perumal vs John Deavin And Anr. on 24 December, 1958
32. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. G. Subramaniam contended that a Company incorporated is a distinct and independent person in
law, endowed with special rights and privileges, being a separate legal entity distinct from its members. Relying on a decision of this Court in R.T. Perumal v. Join Deavin, , he contended that shareholders are not in the eye of law part-owners of the undertaking, and thus the respondent No.2 has no pecuniary interest.