Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
47. Returning to the Wander v Antox principle, we find that view
the learned Single Judge was not merely plausible. It was the only
possible view in the circumstances of the case, and one with which we
are entirely in agreement.
Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited on 14 March, 2022
(vi) In NTPC Limited (supra) the Supreme Court held that the
Court does not sit in appeal over an award passed by an Arbitrator.
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd vs Pothan Joseph on 27 April, 1960
"14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the
exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals,
the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of
discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own
discretion except where the discretion has been shown to
have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely
or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law
regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An
appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on
principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and
seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by
the court below if the one reached by the court was
reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court
would normally not be justified in interfering with the
exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that
if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have
come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been
exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial
manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a
different view may not justify interference with the trial
court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these
principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd.
v. Pothan Joseph: (SCR 721) :
1