Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)
Hanuman Prasad & Brothers vs Union Of India And Anr. on 16 March, 2001 cites

Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd vs Raymon & Co. (India) Private Ltd.(And ... on 4 May, 1964

In Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymond & Co. Ltd. (1), it was held that where, however, it is a term of the very contract whose validity is in question, it has no existence apart from the impugned contract and must perish with it. An agreement for arbitration is the very foundation on which the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators to act rests, and where that is not in existence at the time when they enter on their duties, the proceedings must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction. And this defect is not cured by the appearance of the parties in those proceedings even if that is without protest, because consent cannot confer jurisdiction. It was further held that if an award deals with a matter not covered by the agreement it could either be modified or remitted and where such matter is dealt with on the invitation of the parties contained in the statements, the Arbitrators must be held to have acted within jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 89 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.V. Baby And Anr. on 21 August, 1997

In Union of India v. V.K. Bahri and Anr. (3), the Single Bench of Delhi High Court had held that in case the arbitration agreement providing that Arbitrator should state reasons for award and failure to give reasons, invalidates the award and the award is to be remitted to Arbitrator under Section 16(i)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was a case where the arbitration agreement had specifically provided that in case the claim is in excess of certain amount, the Arbitrator shall mention his reasons for the award but the Arbitrator failed to give reasons while awarding amount in excess of specified amount. It was held that under the arbitration agreement, it is obligatory for the Arbitrator to state the reasons for the award. The requirement is binding on the Arbitrator. Failure to give reasons amounted to an illegality on the part of Arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Continental Construction Co. Ltd vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 1988

In the case of Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (4), it was held that if no specific question of law is referred, the decision of the Arbitrator on that question is not final, however, much it may be within his jurisdiction and indeed essential for him to decide the question incidentally; the Arbitrator is not a Conciliator and cannot ignore the law or misapply it in order to do what he thinks is just and reasonable. The Arbitrator is a Tribunal selected by the parties to decide their disputes according to law and so is bound to follow and apply the law, and if he does not, the award can be set right by the Court providing his error appears on the face of the record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 137 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1