Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Section 34 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
The judgment in Associate Builders (supra) clearly enunciates unless
there is a patent illegality or perversity or violation of the principle of natural
justice, the award cannot be interfered with.
Section 5 in The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
An award can be said to be against justice or morality only when it shocks
the conscience of the Court. The instance of it can be whether the Tribunal
awards a sum without any acceptable reason or justification. The concept of
Patent Illegality was considered by reference to the explanation under Section
34(2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act which states that an award is said to be in conflict
with Public Policy of Indian Law if the making of the award is induced or affected
by fraud or corruption. Patent Illegality would include a contravention of the
substantive law of India or if an award is based in contravention of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 - for example, if an arbitrator failed to give any reason
for an award in contravention of Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act and in all cases
whether the Tribunal failed to decide in accordance with the terms of the contract
which in effect would be really a contravention of Section 28(3) of the 11
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, entered a
caveat by stating that an arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the
terms of the contract but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a
reasonable manner, it would not mean that the award can be set aside on this
ground. Construction of the terms of the contract is primarily for an arbitrator to
decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be
said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person would do, of
course, the arbitrator cannot wander outside the contract and deals with the
matters not forming the subject matter or allotted to him as in that case he
would commit jurisdictional error. The said judgment also recognized and
reaffirmed the settled law that where a cause or matters in differences are
referred o an arbitrator, whether layer or layman, he is constituted the sole and
final judge of all questions of law and of fact obviously with the limited grounds
of interference as alluded to above.
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Salzgitter Mannesmann International ... on 18 April, 2012
In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Salzgitter Mannesmann; OMP
No.736 of 2009, decided on 18th April, 2012 (Delhi HC) it refused to set
aside the award in view of court's limited and restricted powers for judicial
intervention as under S.34 of the Act.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Friends Coal Carbonisation on 4 April, 2006
An award might be set aside as patently illegal, provided the illegality goes
to the root of the award. If the illegality is of a trivial nature it cannot be said that
the award is against public policy. This proposition was reaffirmed by the
Supreme Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Friends Coal Carbonization
reported at (2006) 4 SCC 445.
K. P. Poulose vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 21 April, 1975
The court relied upon the judgment in P.R.
Shah Shares (supra) and held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the award
of the tribunal by re-assessing and reevaluating the evidence.