Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Steel Authority Of India Limited vs J.C. Budharaja, Government And Mining ... on 1 September, 1999
(ii) 1999 (8) SCC 122 (Steel Authority of India Ltd., Vs. J.C. Budharaja, Government and Mining Contractor)
This case also arose under 1940 Act and this relates to the construction of a reservoir for the Megha Taburu Iron Ore Project. The matter went before the Arbitrators. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrators existence on the agreement and he must act within the limits of the said agreement and cannot ignore the law to do what he thinks is just and reasonable.
The New India Civil Erectors(P) Ltd vs Oil & Natural Gas Corporation on 17 February, 1997
17. It is to be reiterated that to find out whether the arbitrator has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and acted beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties, agreement is required to be looked into. It is true that interpretation of a particular condition in the agreement would be within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. However, in cases where there is no question of interpretation of any term of the contract, but of solely reading the same as it is and still the arbitrator ignores it and awards the amount despite the prohibition in the agreement, the award would be arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. Whether the arbitrator has acted beyond the terms of the contract or has travelled beyond his jurisdiction would depend upon facts, which however would be jurisdictional facts, and are required to be gone into by the court. Arbitrator may have jurisdiction to entertain claim and yet he may not have jurisdiction to pass award for particular items in view of the prohibition contained in the contract and, in such cases, it would be a jurisdictional error. For this limited purpose reference to the terms of the contract is a must. Dealing with similar question this Court in New India Civil Erectors (P) Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, MANU/SC/0221/1997 : [1997]2SCR86 held thus:
Food Corporation Of India vs Sreekanth Transport on 14 May, 1999
(iii) 1999 (4) SCC 491 (Food Corporation of India Vs. Sreekanth Transport)
This case dealt with the legality of adjudication of excepted matters. The Supreme Court observed that any Government or Governmental agencies contract. Some matters are excluded from the purview of arbitration and the agreement records that the decision of a Senior Officer, being the adjudicator, shall be final and binding. This is what is popularly known as Excepted matters.
M/S. Prabartak Commercial Corporation ... vs The Chief Administrator Dandakaranya ... on 14 December, 1990
(iv) AIR 1991 SC 957(M/s. Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd., Vs. The Chief Administrator Dandakaranya Project)
This case deals with clauses relating to dispute over rates of payment whether the agreement was that the decision of the Superintending Engineer was final. The Supreme Court held that the dispute regarding rates is not arbitrable; the reference and the award is without jurisdiction.
Food Corporation Of India vs M/S.Chandu Construction & Anr on 10 April, 2007
(v) 2007 (4) SCC 697 (Food Corporation of India Vs. Chandu Construction and another)
12.
The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd vs Hyaliram Jagannath on 19 October, 1967
Similarly, in The Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath MANU/SC/0348/1967 : [1968]1SCR821 , this Court had observed that where there is an express term, the Court cannot find, on construction of the contract, an implied term inconsistent with such express term.
State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions on 31 July, 2003
(vii) 2003 (7) SCC 396(State of U.P. Vs. Allied Constructions)
In this case the contractor made a claim on account of loss sustained due to flooding of the work area. It was contended that in view of the force majeure clause no claim can be made. The Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence led before the Arbitrator that the rain unprecedented and that is why the loss was sustained such finding of facts cannot be interfered with.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
(h) The award made by the arbitrator disregarding the terms of the reference or the arbitration agreement or the terms of the contract would be a jurisdictional error which requires ultimately to be decided by the court. He cannot award an amount which is ruled out or prohibited by the terms of the agreement. Because of specific bar stipulated by the parties in the agreement, that claim could not be raised. Even if it is raised and referred to arbitration because of wider arbitration clause such claim amount cannot be awarded as agreement is binding between the parties and the arbitrator has to adjudicate as per the agreement. This aspect is absolutely made clear in Continental Construction Co. Ltd. (supra) by relying upon the following passage from M/s. Alopi Parshad v. Union of India MANU/SC/0114/1988 : [1988]3SCR103 which is to the following effect:
Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd vs Hindustan Coper Ltd on 5 April, 2005
(ix) 2005 (6) SCC 462 (Bhagawathi Oxygen Ltd., Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.)
36. The last question relates to payment of interest. The Arbitrator awarded interest to BOL at the universal rate of eighteen per cent for all the three stages, pre-reference period, pendente lite and post award period. It is not disputed that in the arbitration agreement there is no provision for payment of interest. The learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench were right in observing that the Arbitrator, in the facts and circumstances, could have awarded interest. The Arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of eighteen per cent on the ground of loan so advanced by HCL to BOL at that rate.