Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)
Pride Construction Co. vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 October, 1991 cites

Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd vs C. Rajasekhar Rao on 27 July, 1987

He remains the sole judge of the quality as well as quantity of the evidence and it will not be and should never be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator [See Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v C. Rajasekhar Rao ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Jagannath Ashok Kumar ; M/s Alppl Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India, ]. It is not misconduct on the part of the arbitrator to come to even an erroneous decision (See Halsbury's Law of England 24th Ed; Russel 20th Ed.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 84 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr on 17 September, 1987

He remains the sole judge of the quality as well as quantity of the evidence and it will not be and should never be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator [See Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v C. Rajasekhar Rao ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Jagannath Ashok Kumar ; M/s Alppl Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India, ]. It is not misconduct on the part of the arbitrator to come to even an erroneous decision (See Halsbury's Law of England 24th Ed; Russel 20th Ed.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 291 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960

He remains the sole judge of the quality as well as quantity of the evidence and it will not be and should never be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a judge on the evidence before the arbitrator [See Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v C. Rajasekhar Rao ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Jagannath Ashok Kumar ; M/s Alppl Prasad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India, ]. It is not misconduct on the part of the arbitrator to come to even an erroneous decision (See Halsbury's Law of England 24th Ed; Russel 20th Ed.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 298 - J C Shah - Full Document

Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth And Others vs Chintamanrao Balaji And Others on 19 November, 1963

(13) The Court is entitled to set aside the award: (i) If the arbitrator misconducted himself in the proceedings, or (ii) when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the proceedings, or (iij) if the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35; or (iv) where an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It may be also set aside on the ground of error on the face of the award. But the award is not invalid merely because by a process of inference and arguments it may be demonstrative that the arbitrator has-committed some mistake in arriving at his conclusion (See) (Jivaralbhal Ujamshi Sheth v. Chintamanrao Balaji, 1965 Sc 214). In the present case the reasons advanced and the conclusions arrived at do not suffer from any blemish.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 191 - J C Shah - Full Document
1