Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.78 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Limited vs J.C. Budharaja, Government And Mining ... on 1 September, 1999
In Union of India v.
Popular Builders (2000) 8 SCC 1 and Steel Authority of India
Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Govt. and Mining Contractor (1999) 8
SCC 122, Ch. Ramalinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer
(1999) 9 SCC 610 (para 18) and Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd.
v. Union of India (1962) 2 SCR 793 at p. 804 this Court has
unequivocally expressed that an award by an arbitrator over
a claim which was not arbitrable as per the terms of the
contract entered into between the parties would be liable to
be set aside.
M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960
In Union of India v.
Popular Builders (2000) 8 SCC 1 and Steel Authority of India
Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Govt. and Mining Contractor (1999) 8
SCC 122, Ch. Ramalinga Reddy v. Superintending Engineer
(1999) 9 SCC 610 (para 18) and Alopi Parshad and Sons Ltd.
v. Union of India (1962) 2 SCR 793 at p. 804 this Court has
unequivocally expressed that an award by an arbitrator over
a claim which was not arbitrable as per the terms of the
contract entered into between the parties would be liable to
be set aside.
M/S. Prabartak Commercial Corporation ... vs The Chief Administrator Dandakaranya ... on 14 December, 1990
In Prabartak Commercial Corpn. Ltd. v. Chief
Administrator, Dandakaranya Project (1991) 1 SCC 498 a
claim covered by "excepted matter" was referred to the
arbitrator in spite of such reference having been objected to
and the arbitrator gave an award. This Court held that the
arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the
reference of the dispute to the arbitrator was invalid and the
entire proceedings before the arbitrator including the awards
made by him were null and void."
State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Nav Bharat Construction Company on 4 October, 2005
"27. There can be no dispute to the well-established
principle set out in these cases. However, these cases do not
detract from the law laid down in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
case or Continental Construction Co. Ltd. case. An arbitrator
cannot go beyond the terms of the contract between the
parties. In the guise of doing justice he cannot award
contrary to the terms of the contract. If he does so, he will
have misconducted himself. Of course if an interpretation of
a term of the contract is involved then the interpretation of
the arbitrator must be accepted unless it is one which could
not be reasonably possible. However, where the term of the
contract is clear and unambiguous the arbitrator cannot
ignore it."
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Friends Coal Carbonisation on 4 April, 2006
11) In Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. Friends Coal
Carbonisation, (2006) 4 SCC 445, the following principles laid
down in paragraphs 13 and 14 are relevant for the disposal of
the present case:
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
"13. This Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC
705 held that an award contrary to substantive provisions of
law or the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 or against the terms of the contract, would be patently
illegal, and if it affects the rights of the parties, open to
interference by the court under Section 34(2) of the Act. This
Court observed: (SCC pp. 718 & 727-28, paras 13 & 31)
"13. The question, therefore, which requires consideration
is--whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral
Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Sections 24, 28 or 31(3), which affects the
rights of the parties. Under sub-section (1)(a) of Section 28
there is a mandate to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the
14
dispute in accordance with the substantive law for the time
being in force in India. Admittedly, substantive law would
include the Indian Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act
and other such laws in force. Suppose, if the award is
passed in violation of the provisions of the Transfer of
Property Act or in violation of the Indian Contract Act, the
question would be--whether such award could be set aside.
Similarly, under sub-section (3), the Arbitral Tribunal is
directed to decide the dispute in accordance with the terms
of the contract and also after taking into account the usage
of the trade applicable to the transaction. If the Arbitral
Tribunal ignores the terms of the contract or usage of the
trade applicable to the transaction, whether the said award
could be interfered. Similarly, if the award is a non-speaking
one and is in violation of Section 31(3), can such award be
set aside? In our view, reading Section 34 conjointly with
other provisions of the Act, it appears that the legislative
intent could not be that if the award is in contravention of
the provisions of the Act, still however, it couldn't be set
aside by the court. If it is held that such award could not be
interfered, it would be contrary to the basic concept of
justice. If the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, it would
mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby
the award would be patently illegal which could be set aside
under Section 34.