Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923
The observations of Lord Dunedin in Champsey Bhard
(supra) stands accepted and adopted by this Court in Bungo Steel Furniture
(supra) to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction to investigate
into the merits of the case or to examine the documentary and oral evidence
in the record for the purposes of finding out whether or nor the Arbitrator
has committed an error of law. The Court as a matter of fact, cannot
substitute its own evaluation and come to the conclusion that the
Arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties.
N. Chellappan vs Secretary, Kerala State Electricity ... on 21 November, 1974
Needless to record that there exists a long catena of cases through which
the law seems to be rather well settled that the re-appraisal of evidence
by the Court is not permissible. This Court in one of its latest decisions
(Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr, [1999] 9 SCC 449 upon
consideration of decisioni in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg, &
Wvg Co Ltd., AIR (1923) PC 66, 1923 AC 480); Union of India V.Bungo Steel
furniture (P)Ltd, AIR (1967) SC 1032, [1967] 1 SCR324; .N. Chellappan v.
Secy, Kerala SEB and Anr, [1975] 1 SCC 289; Ms. Sudarsan Trading Co: v.
Government of Kerala and Anr., [1989] 2 SCC 38 and State of Rajasthan v.
Puri Cdnstruction Co. Ltd. and Anr.. [1994] 6 SCC 485 as also in Olympus
Superstructures (P) Ltd v. Meena Vijay Kkeian & Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 651 has
stated that re-appraisal of evidence by the Court is not permissible and as
a. matter of fact, exercise of power to re-appraise the evidence is unknown
to a proceeding under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors. on 11 May, 1999
Needless to record that there exists a long catena of cases through which
the law seems to be rather well settled that the re-appraisal of evidence
by the Court is not permissible. This Court in one of its latest decisions
(Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr, [1999] 9 SCC 449 upon
consideration of decisioni in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg, &
Wvg Co Ltd., AIR (1923) PC 66, 1923 AC 480); Union of India V.Bungo Steel
furniture (P)Ltd, AIR (1967) SC 1032, [1967] 1 SCR324; .N. Chellappan v.
Secy, Kerala SEB and Anr, [1975] 1 SCC 289; Ms. Sudarsan Trading Co: v.
Government of Kerala and Anr., [1989] 2 SCC 38 and State of Rajasthan v.
Puri Cdnstruction Co. Ltd. and Anr.. [1994] 6 SCC 485 as also in Olympus
Superstructures (P) Ltd v. Meena Vijay Kkeian & Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 651 has
stated that re-appraisal of evidence by the Court is not permissible and as
a. matter of fact, exercise of power to re-appraise the evidence is unknown
to a proceeding under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs K.V.L.Narasimha Rao & Ors on 19 April, 1999
The respondent on the other hand with
however equal vehemence and zest contended upon reliance on the judgment of
this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors v, R. V, Rayamin & Ors,
[1990] 1 SCC 433 that in the matter of challenging the award there are
often two very distinct and separate grounds-one being an error apparent on
the face of the award and the other is that the Arbitrator has exceeded his
jurisdiction : whereas in the former the court can look into the agreement
and upon consideration of the agreement, the award can be set aside and in
the latter, the award can be set aside on the ground that the Arbitrator
has exceeded his jurisdiction and the evidence starting on the face of the
award will be admitted in order to establish whether the jurisdiction had
been exceeded or not since the nature of the dispute is something which has
to be determined whatever might be said about it in the award by the
Arbitrator, The entire submission of the respondent is based upon the
judgment in Rayanim (supra).
V.G. George vs Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Si Anr on 8 April, 1999
Next in the line of decisions relied upon by the respondent is a recent one
of this Court in the case of V.G. George v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd: & Anr,,
[1999] 3 SCC 762. Relevance of the decision on the merits of the matter in
the instant appeal would be dealt with immediately hereinafter but before
so doingj it would be convenient to note the observations of this Court in
paragraph 6 (at page 764 of the Report) wherein it has been categorically
stated that the Court was concerned with clause (a) of Section 30 of the
Arbitration Act which empowers the courts to set aside an award on the
ground that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the
proceedings-this observation of the Court itself takes put the relevancy of
the decision in the matter since presently we are concerned with clause (c)
of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to wit: 'otherwise invalid', This is
however, apart from what is noticed hereinbelow as detailed submissions
have been made relying upon the judgment of this court. The recording of
facts by mis Court in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 stand out singularly
singular distinguishing feature between V.G. George and the appeal under
consideration before this Court presently. For convenience sake, the above
noted paragraphs are set out hereinbelow.
Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991
The
decision thus in Associated Engineering (supra) also is of no assistance to
the respondents herein.
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
By reason of the above this Special Leave Petition has been filed wherein
notices have been issued and the appeal is disposed of upon leave being
granted as above,
Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing in support of the Appeal rather
strongly contended that the High Court in an appeal from the order of the
1st Subordinate Judge. Bokaro in making the award, the rule of court ought
not to have interfered with the same, neither High Court had any authority
of jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it has been so done. It is on
this score that appellant herein placed strong reliance on the decision of
this Court Arosan 's case (supra).
The Arbitration Act, 1940
1