Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (2.78 seconds)
M/S.Tsmt Technology (India) Private ... vs S & J Turn-Key Contractor (India) ... on 4 June, 2024
cites
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In this case, I do not find any patent illegality in the
impugned Award if the Hodgkinson principle recognized by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority,
(2015) 3 SCC 49. It has to be therefore held that the Arbitral Tribunal is
the best judge with regard to quality and quantity of evidence before it.
Therefore, on this count also the impugned Award does not warrant any
interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
Page No.34 of 37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.125 of 2023
1996.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ssangyong Engineering and
Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highway Authority of India”,
(2019) 15 SCC 131, has held that an Award can be set aside on the ground
of patent illegality under Section 34(2-A) of the Arbitration And
Conciliation Act, 1996 only where the illegality in the Award goes to the
root of the matter. It is further held that finding of erroneous application of
law by an Arbitral Tribunal or the re-appreciation of evidence by the Court
Page No.12 of 37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.125 of 2023
under Section 34(2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not
available.
Psa Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of V.O. ... on 28 July, 2021
In “PSA Sical Terminals case” [PSA Sical Terminals (P)
Ltd. Vs. V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 508],
this Court clearly held that the role of the Arbitrator was to arbitrate within
the terms of the contract. The Arbitrator had no power apart from what
the parties had given him under the contract. If he has travelled beyond
the contract, he would be acting without jurisdiction.
M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
“12. It is a settled position that a court can
set aside the award only on the grounds as
provided in the Arbitration Act as
interpreted by the courts. Recently, this
Court in Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v.
Crompton Greaves Ltd.[Dyna Technologies
Page No.23 of 37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
Parsa Kenta Collieries Ltd. vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam ... on 27 May, 2019
In Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan
Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. [Parsa Kente
Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan
Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Civ) 552] , adverting to the previous decisions of
this Court in McDermott International Inc.v.Burn
Standard Co. Ltd. [McDermott International
Inc.v.Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181]
and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand
Ram Saran [Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan
Chand Ram Saran, (2012) 5 SCC 306] , wherein it
has been observed that an Arbitral Tribunal must
decide in accordance with the terms of the
contract, but if a term of the contract has been
construed in a reasonable manner, then the award
ought not to be set aside on this ground, it has
been held thus : (Parsa Kente Collieries case
[Parsa Kente Collieries Ltd. v. Rajasthan Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., (2019) 7 SCC 236 :