Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.64 seconds)
O.P. Kapoor And Ors. vs Raman Kapoor And Anr. on 8 June, 2011 cites

Seth Mohanlal Hiralal vs State Of M.P. on 19 August, 2003

In Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P., (2003) 12 SCC 144, a case under the Arbitration Ac, 1940, the Supreme Court referred to the view in K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala, (1975) 2 SCC 236, wherein it had been held that misconduct under section 30(a) has no connotation of moral lapse. It comprises legal misconduct which is O.M.P. Nos. 245/2005, 351/2009, 400/2009, 428/2009 & 429/2009 Page 36 of 54 complete if the arbitrator, on the face of the award, arrives at an inconsistent conclusion even on his own finding or arrives at a decision by ignoring the very material documents which throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

K. P. Poulose vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 21 April, 1975

In Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P., (2003) 12 SCC 144, a case under the Arbitration Ac, 1940, the Supreme Court referred to the view in K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala, (1975) 2 SCC 236, wherein it had been held that misconduct under section 30(a) has no connotation of moral lapse. It comprises legal misconduct which is O.M.P. Nos. 245/2005, 351/2009, 400/2009, 428/2009 & 429/2009 Page 36 of 54 complete if the arbitrator, on the face of the award, arrives at an inconsistent conclusion even on his own finding or arrives at a decision by ignoring the very material documents which throw abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 237 - P K Goswami - Full Document

M.D., Army Welfare Housing ... vs Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd on 8 October, 2003

In MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619, the Supreme Court held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the award of the arbitrator, but can certainly interfere when the award suffers from non-application of mind or when a relevant fact is ignored or an irrelevant fact not germane for deciding the dispute is taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 151 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999

In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 9 SCC 449, wherein it has been held that where the error of finding of fact, having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various possible viewpoints, the interference with award based on erroneous finding of fact is permissible. Similarly, if an award is based by applying a principle of law, which is patently erroneous, and but for such erroneous application of legal principle, the award could not have been made, such an award is liable to be set aside by holding that there has been legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Sukhdeo Singh And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1992

"But the court cannot afford to overlook the fact that the science of identification of handwriting is an imperfect and frail one as compared to the science of identification of finger-prints; courts have, therefore, been wary in placing implicit reliance on such opinion evidence and have looked for corroboration but that is not to say that it is a rule of prudence of general application regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of expert evidence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but the Court has to decide in each case on its own merits what weight it should attach to the opinion of the expert."
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 268 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next