Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
M/S India Infoline Ltd vs Praveen Kumar Singh (Constitutent) on 7 October, 2015 cites

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003

4. Counsel for claimant placed reliance upon Oil and Natural Page No. 4 Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. 2003(2) RAJ 1(SC) wherein it was observed that "award can be set aside if it is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law (b) the interest of India (c) justice or morality or (d) in addition, if it is patently illegal, must go to the root of the matter and if its illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award can also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 1413 - Full Document

Baron International Ltd. vs M/S. Startron Video P. Ltd. & Anr. on 25 February, 2010

5. Counsel for objector also placed reliance upon Baron International Ltd. vs. Startron Video P. Ltd. And Anr. OMP No. 124/2009 decided on 25.02.2010 and 2008(3) R.A.J. 612(Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Shiv Khullar wherein inter­alia, it was held that "a commonly held belief that while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act, the Court cannot look into the evidence before the Arbitrator also needs to be clarified. There is a difference in re­appreciating evidence and considering whether material evidence has been ignored. Whereas the former would be an activity prohibited while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act for the reason an Arbitrator is a chosen forum by the parties to conclude rival issues of fact between the parties, the latter would be an activity to find out whether learned Arbitrator has acted within his mandate for the reason the mandate of the Arbitrator is to decide on facts after considering all the relevant facts and not ignoring the same."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Manmohan - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs Shri Shiv Khullar And Anr. on 28 March, 2008

5. Counsel for objector also placed reliance upon Baron International Ltd. vs. Startron Video P. Ltd. And Anr. OMP No. 124/2009 decided on 25.02.2010 and 2008(3) R.A.J. 612(Del) and Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Shiv Khullar wherein inter­alia, it was held that "a commonly held belief that while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act, the Court cannot look into the evidence before the Arbitrator also needs to be clarified. There is a difference in re­appreciating evidence and considering whether material evidence has been ignored. Whereas the former would be an activity prohibited while considering objections U/s 34 of the Act for the reason an Arbitrator is a chosen forum by the parties to conclude rival issues of fact between the parties, the latter would be an activity to find out whether learned Arbitrator has acted within his mandate for the reason the mandate of the Arbitrator is to decide on facts after considering all the relevant facts and not ignoring the same."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 18 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Ongc Ltd vs Garware Shipping Corpn. Ltd on 14 November, 2007

7. There cannot be any dispute with the prepositions of law as laid down in the aforesaid authorities, however, in the instant matter, Ld. Arbitrator has not considered the objections raised by the objector which go to the root of the matter including the information received by the claimant regarding all the transactions. It is correct that this Court not sitting in appeal cannot re­ appreciate the evidence but the conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid discussion is regarding material evidence having not been considered by Ld. Arbitrator which calls for setting aside of the award. Ld. Arbitrator shall consider all the plea raised by the objector with opportunity to both the parties to place on record any other material if they wish so. Objection petition is disposed off in above terms. A copy of this order along with arbitral record be sent to Ld. Arbitrator. File be consigned to Record Room.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 64 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1