Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021
In
this connection the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in The
Project Director, NHAI V. M. Hakim, (2021) 9 SCC 1 is invited
wherein it was held that the power to set aside an Arbitral Award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 does not include
the authority to modify the award. It further held that an award can be 'set
aside' only on limited grounds as specified in Section 34 of the Act and it
is not an appellate provision. It further held that an application under
Section 34 for setting aside an award does not entail any challenge on
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 20 of 29
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.434 of 2023
merits to an award.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
23. The Court held that the above ground is available only where the
view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal is an impossible view while construing
the contract between the parties or where the award of the tribunal lacks
any reasons. The Court further held that an award can be set aside only if
an arbitrator/arbitral tribunal decide(s) the question beyond the contract or
beyond the terms of reference or if the finding arrived by the Arbitral
Tribunal is based on no evidence or ignoring vital evidence or is based on
documents taken as evidence without notice to the parties.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 21 of 29
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.434 of 2023
Patel Engineering Ltd. vs North Eastern Electric Power ... on 22 May, 2020
24. The Honourable Supreme Court in Patel Engineering Ltd Vs.
NEEPCO, (2020) 7 SCC 167 held that patent illegality as a ground for
setting aside an award is available only if the decision of the arbitrator is
found to be perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have
arrived at the same or the construction of the contract is such that no fair
or reasonable person would take or that the view of the arbitrator is not
even a possible view.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
25. The Honourable Supreme Court in McDermott International
Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd, (2006) 11 SCC 181 held that while
interpreting the terms of a contract, the conduct of parties and
correspondences exchanged would also be relevant factors and it is well
within the arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider the same.
Sutlej Construction Limited vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh on 5 December, 2017
26. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sutlej Construction Ltd. v.
UT of Chandigarh, (2018) 1 SCC 718, held that when the award is a
reasoned one and the view taken is plausible, re-appreciation of evidence
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 22 of 29
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.434 of 2023
is not allowed while dealing with the challenge to an award under Section
34 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an
award. It further held that the proceedings challenging the award cannot be
treated as a first appellate court against a decree passed by a trial court.
M/S.Sheladia Associates Inc vs Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project Ii on 30 April, 2019
27. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sheladia Associates Inc. V.
TN Road Sector Project II, Represented by its Project Director, 2019
SCC OnLine Mad 17883 reminded itself of the Hodgkinson principle
which has been explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the oft-
quoted and celebrated Associate Builders Case being Associate Builders
V. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49. It held that
Hodgkinson principle in simple terms means that the Arbitral Tribunal is
the best judge with regard to quality and quantity of evidence before it. It
further held that if there is no infraction of Section 28(3) of the Arbitration
And Conciliation Act, 1996 the question of challenge on the grounds of
public policy does not arise.