Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.37 seconds)Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In Associate Builders (supra)10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying on MSK
Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, reported at (2011) 10 SCC 573,
observed that if the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the
contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction but if he wonders outside
the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a
jurisdictional error. It was further held that extrinsic evidence is admissible
in such cases because the dispute is not something which arises under or in
relation to the contract or dependent on the construction of the contract or
to be determined within the award.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
142. However, in State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd., reported at (2022) 2
SCC 275, while considering Ssaynong Engg. (supra)11 and Associate Builders
10
Associate Builders v. DDA, reported at (2015) 3 SCC 49
11
Ssaynong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, reported at (2019) 15 SCC 131
45
2026:CHC-OS:206
(supra)12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also took into consideration Delhi
Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC, reported at (2022) 1 SCC 131, where
it was held that patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of
the matter. In such context, it was further elaborated that the permissible
ground for interference with a domestic award under Section 34(2-A) on the
ground of patent illegality is when the arbitrator takes a view which is not
even a possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in such a manner
which no fair-minded or reasonable person would, or if the arbitrator
commits an error of jurisdiction by wondering outside the contract and
dealing with matters not allotted to them.
Section 59 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Sal Udyog(P) Ltd on 8 November, 2021
142. However, in State of Chhattisgarh v. SAL Udyog (P) Ltd., reported at (2022) 2
SCC 275, while considering Ssaynong Engg. (supra)11 and Associate Builders
10
Associate Builders v. DDA, reported at (2015) 3 SCC 49
11
Ssaynong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, reported at (2019) 15 SCC 131
45
2026:CHC-OS:206
(supra)12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also took into consideration Delhi
Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. v. DMRC, reported at (2022) 1 SCC 131, where
it was held that patent illegality should be illegality which goes to the root of
the matter. In such context, it was further elaborated that the permissible
ground for interference with a domestic award under Section 34(2-A) on the
ground of patent illegality is when the arbitrator takes a view which is not
even a possible one, or interprets a clause in the contract in such a manner
which no fair-minded or reasonable person would, or if the arbitrator
commits an error of jurisdiction by wondering outside the contract and
dealing with matters not allotted to them.
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar vs The Official Assignee Of Madras, As The ... on 21 August, 1930
91. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Rahul Kumar Thakur (supra)3, held
that since no case of concealment of vital documents or false statements
had been made out, which had a causative link with the facts constituted
1
A.L.Narayanan Chettyar and Anr. v. Official Assignee of the High Court of Rangoon,
reported at 54 LW 606
2
Union of India v. Chaturbhai M. Patel and Co., reported at (1976) 1 SCC 747
3
Union of India & Ors. v. Rahul Kumar Thakur (AP-COM/657/2024)
29
2026:CHC-OS:206
and culminating the award, it could not be said that there was corruption
on the part of the Arbitrator.