Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (2.20 seconds)Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority,
reported at (2015) 3 SCC 49, the Supreme Court while further
explaining the scope of judicial intervention under the appeal
in the Act held as under:-
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd on 9 September, 2009
In the case of Steel Authority of India v. Gupta Brothers Steel
Tubes Limited, (2009) 10 SCC 63, the Supreme Court has laid down
that an error relatable to interpretations of the contract by an Arbitrator
is an error within his jurisdiction and such error is not amenable to
correction by Courts as such error is not an error on the face of the
award. The Supreme Court has further laid down that the Arbitrator
having been made the final arbiter of resolution of disputes between
the parties, the award is not open to challenge on the ground that the
Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion. The courts do not interfere
with the conclusion of the Arbitrator even with regard to the
construction of contract, if it is a plausible view of the matter.
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
8. It is no longer res integra that the scope of judicial interference in an
application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is limited in nature. It has further been held that the scope of
interference while deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is even more restrictive in
nature. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that an
arbitration award should not be lightly interfered with. (See
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric, (1994) Supp.
P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd vs M/S. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors on 14 October, 2011
In
P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. v. B.H.H.
Securities (P) Ltd. (2012) 1 SCC 594, this Court held:
Section 11 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
M/S.J.G.Engineers Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 April, 2011
12. The Apex Court in J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
reported at (2011) 5 SCC 758, demarcated the boundary while
explaining the ambit of section 34(2) of the Act.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Friends Coal Carbonisation on 4 April, 2006
1 SCC;
ONGC v. Saw Pipes, (2003) 5 SCC 705, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v.
Friends Coal Carbonisation, (2006) 4 SCC 445; and Associate
Builders v. DDA, (2015 3 SCC 49).
State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd vs M/S Toepfer International Asia Pte Ltd. on 2 July, 2014
In the
case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Toepfer
International Asia Pte. Ltd, reported at 2014(144) DRJ 220(DB), in
para 16 it has been held as under:
1