Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)Food Corporation Of India vs Surendra, Devendra & Mohendra ... on 10 December, 1987
In the case of Food Corporation of India (supra), the Supreme Court held that raising of claim before the Arbitrator regarding transit loss, demurrage and war-fage charges is barred under the agreement and, adjudication of such claim by the Arbitrator amount of exceeding jurisdiction. Their Lordships observed :
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Section 34(2)(b) and observed ;
M/S Sikkim Subba Associates vs State Of Sikkim on 1 May, 2001
In the case of M/s. Sikkim Subha Associates (supra), the Supreme Court observed :
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
"It is also, by now, well settled that an arbitrator is not a conciliator and his duty is to decide the disputes submitted to him according to the legal rights of the parties and not according to what he may consider it to be fair and reasonable. Arbitrator was held not entitled to ignore the law or misapply it and cannot also act arbitrally, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract (See 1999 (9) SCC 283 : 1999 AIR SCW 3644 : AIR 1999 SC 3627) Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises. If there are two equally possible or plausible views or, interpretations it was considered to be legitimate for the arbitrator to accept one or the other of the available interpretations. It would be difficult for the Courts to either exhaustively define the word 'misconduct' or likewise enumerate the line of cases in which alone interference either could or could not be made. Courts of law have a duty and obligation order to maintain purity or standards and preserve fully faith and credit as well as to in spite confidence in alternate dispute redressal method of arbitration, when on the face of the award it is shown to be based upon a proposition of law which is unsound or findings recorded which are absurd or so unreasonable and irrational that no reasonable or right thinking person or authority could have reasonably come to such a conclusion on the basis of the materials on record or the governing position of law to interfere. So far as the case before us is concerned, the reference to the arbitrator is found to be a general reference to adjudicate upon the disputes relating to the alleged termination of the agreement by the State and not a specific reference on any particular question and consequently, if it is shown or substantiated to be erroneous on the fact of, it, the award must be set aside."
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors. on 11 May, 1999
"High Court issued a direction by order dated 16th June, 1988 referring the disputes for arbitrator in terms of Clause XX. The matters which were excluded from the reference to the arbitrator therefore could not be referred to or decided by the arbitrator. Entrance of reference by the arbitrator on disputes which were excluded from reference and the adjudication thereupon would amount to exceeding in the exercise of the Jurisdiction as held by this Court in Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. case (supra). Since there was a specific bar to the raising of a claim regarding transit, demurrage and warfage charges, the award made by the arbitrator in respect thereof would be in excess of the jurisdiction."
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1