Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.29 seconds)
M/S. Devender Kumar vs Khem Chand Reported In 2003 (2) Raj on 4 July, 2009 cites

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999

Such award is opposed to public policy and is required to be adjudged void.' ' In the case of Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2071, it has been observed by the Hon'bl e Apex Court that:­ " .........In Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Another, (Supra), this court after considering several decisions on the point held that if an Arbitrator has acted arbitrarily ,irrationally, capriciously or beyond the terms of 22 the agreement, as award passed by him can be set aside. In such cases the Arbitrator can be said to have acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred on him....."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

Tribal Co-Operative Marketing ... vs Auro Industries Limited And Anr. on 15 April, 2002

Further in the case of Tribal Co­operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. Vs. Auro Industries Limited, reported in 2002 VII Apex Decisions (Delhi) 194 it was observed as under:­ " ..........Any finding of the Arbitrator either on factual or on legal matrix if on subsequent examination is found to be wholly unsound the award is liable to be set aside as it amounts to 24 factual or legal misconduct. In ordinary course the Court does not sit in Appeal nor is it required to reappreciate the evidence and the material on record produced before the Arbitrator. Even if there are erroneous findings of the Arbitrator as to the facts the Court should always refrain from interfering with it. What should irk the Court is that perversity of illegality should be writ large on the fact of the award....."
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - J D Kapoor - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. & Anr on 21 March, 1997

An objection has been raised by the objector/MCD is with regard to the limitation. It has been vehemently argued by the Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the objector/ MCD that the Ld. Arbitrator has failed to appreciate that the liability of the objector MCD qua the respondent contractor was discharged on the expiry of 90 days in terms of the provisions set out in the Arbitration Agreement contained under clause 25. It is argued that the invocation of the arbitration as well as the claims filed by the claimant were barred by time as per the provisions of Clause 25 of the Agreement since as per the terms and conditions of the Arbitration Clause 25 the claimant has to make the demand for appointment of the Arbitrator and he has to 26 invoke the arbitration in writing within 90 days. It is argued that in the present case the completion of work is disputed by the MCD and the Vigilance Department is already investigating the matter as to how entries have been entered into the measurement books without SLF receipts, videography and photography and the Commissioner MCD vide letter dated 9.10.2002 through the Additional Director Vigilance ordered that no further payment in the year 2000­ 2001 and 2001­2002 relating to de­silting of drains by CSE Division should not be made till such investigations are completed. It is argued that as per the respondent no. 1 the work was completed in June - July 2000 and therefore, the respondent no. 1 should have invoked the Arbitration within 90 days and having invoked the same in the year 2005 which was much beyond the special period agreed by the parties, the arbitration is beyond the period of limitation even as per the law of limitation. The Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the objector has placed his reliance in the case of Wild Life Institute of India Vs. Vijay Kumar Garg reported in 27 1997 (10) SCC 528 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Sujir Nayak & Co. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2049.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 104 - Full Document
1   2 Next