Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (2.46 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 9
SCC 449] also, it was held that there cannot be any reappraisal of the
evidence. It has been held as follows in paragraphs 36 and 37 therein:
M/S. Kwality Manufacturing ... vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 23 February, 2009
In Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central
Warehousing Corporation [(2009) 5 SCC 142], it was held that " at
the outset, it should be noted that the scope of interference by courts in
regard to arbitral awards is limited. A court considering an
application under Section 30 or 33 of the Act does not sit in appeal
Arb.Appeal No.2/2012 13
over the findings and decision of the arbitrator. Nor can it reassess or
reappreciate evidence or examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the
evidence." ( paragraph 10).
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009
37. Our attention was invited by the learned Government
Pleader to a decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and
Another v. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Ltd. [(2009) 12
SCC 1] to support the reduced rate of interest awarded by the learned
Sub Judge. Therein in paragraph 67, it was held that "the award of
interest at 18% per annum in an award governed by the old Act ( the
Arbitration Act, 1940) was an error apparent on the face of the award.
In regard to award of interest governed by the Interest Act, 1978, the
rate of interest could not exceed the current rate of interest which
means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid
Arb.Appeal No.2/2012 20
on different classes of deposits by different classes of scheduled banks
in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking
companies generally by Reserve Bank of India under the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, we are of the view that pre-reference
interest should be only at the rate of 9% per annum. It is appropriate
to award the same rate of interest even by way of pendente lite interest
and future interest upto the date of payment."
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 28 August, 1992
29. The reliance placed on Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ( AIR 1992 SC 2192) is to advance
the proposition that award can be set aside on the ground of error
apparent on the face of the award. Paragraph 5 of the judgment is
relied upon to contend that the arbitrator cannot award interest at a rate
which is unreasonable. Therein, the Apex Court had held as follows :
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Interest Act, 1978
O.P. Pathrose vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 16 March, 2010
50. It cannot be said that reasons stated by the Arbitrator are
devoid of any merit. The Apex Court in O.P.Pathrose v. State of
Arb.Appeal No.2/2012 34
Kerala and another [(2010) 12 SCC 100] in respect of similar claims,
that too where supplemental agreements were also executed, agreed
with the view taken by the learned Arbitrator that they were executed
under coercion. This is clear from paragraph 19 of the judgment. We
extract the same below :