Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
22. When there were periodic certificates regarding the weather issued
by the Kakinada port authority, there is no reason why a certificate
issued by that authority regarding the strike was not produced by the
Petitioners. Better still, the record of discharge of ships generally as
maintained by the port authority for the relevant period could have
been produced. The members of the AT, who belonged to the
maritime trade, have appreciated the above evidence in light of their
own experience of the industry practices. It could well be argued that
another view on the same evidence is possible. But then that by itself
does not attract any of the grounds under Section 34 of the Act to
enable the Court to interfere. As has been reiterated in several
decisions of the Supreme Court including Associate Builders v. Delhi
Development Authority (supra) to warrant interference, the
conclusions of the AT should be found to be perverse, irrational or
contrary to the evidence on record or arrived at by overlooking the
evidence. In the present case, it cannot be said that in allowing the
claim of GESCL by the second impugned Award the AT ignored any
relevant evidence, or failed to analyse the evidence on record or given
OMP 498/2013 Page 14 of 15
reasons for the conclusions on such analysis. While the AT need not
have again discussed the effect of the letter dated 16th May 1994 of the
MoST, or the failure of the Petitioners to name an alternate port under
Clause 24 of the C/P Agreement, since both those issues were already
decided by the Court in its judgment dated 20th July 2011, the overall
conclusion of the AT on whether the Petitioners were able to show
that there was a strike between 23rd August and 17th September 1992
remains unaffected.
State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs M/S Toepfer International Asia Pte Ltd. on 2 July, 2014
17. Countering the above submissions, it was submitted by Mr.
Sandeep Sethi, learned Senior counsel appearing for GESCL, that the
scope of interference by this Court under Section 34 of the Act is
extremely limited. Reliance was placed on the decision in State
OMP 498/2013 Page 11 of 15
Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Toepfer International Asia
PTE Ltd. 2014 (5) R.A.J. 301 (Del) to urge that "an error by the
Arbitrator relatable to the interpretation of contract was an error within
his jurisdiction and not an error on the face of the Award and was not
amenable to correction by the Courts." It was pointed out that in the
instant case, the three Arbitrators comprising the AT were persons of
the same industry and after a detailed analysis of the evidence, had
returned findings on facts. Therefore, the Award was not amenable to
interference.
Chairman Lic Of India & Ors vs A Masilamani on 23 November, 2012
Also in terms of the decision in Chairman, Life Insurance
Corporation of India v. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530, the AT
was required to form an opinion by the active application of the mind.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ascu Arch Timber Protection Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., Calcutta on 7 April, 2004
20. The two pieces of evidence that were required to be considered
were the certificate dated 23rd September 1994 issued by the KSAA
and the letter dated 1st October 1994 from the office of the Labour
Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh. The Court in its previous order felt
that the AT had not considered the probative value of the above
documents. The AT was obliged in terms of the law explained in
ASCU Arch Timber Protection Ltd.(supra) to examine the above.
1