Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.26 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
(iii) that once there is no dispute as to the contract, what is the interpretation of that contract is a matter for the Arbitrator and the Court cannot substitute its decision thereupon [see Sudarsan Trading Co. vs. The Government of Kerala {AIR 1989 SC 890}];
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd vs Daelim Industrial Company Ltd on 6 September, 2007
In Union of India vs. Best Cast Construction (Pvt.) Ltd {2010 (2) MWN Civil 349}, a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Numaligarh Refinery Ltd vs. Daelim Industrial Company Ltd {2007 (8) SCC 466}, held that while an Arbitrator is entitled to interpret a clause in the contract, he has to act within his jurisdiction. If the construction is within his jurisdiction and with reference to the terms of the contract, as such, the Court should not interfere, even if another construction is possible. But, when the construction made by the Arbitral Tribunal would tantamount to an act without jurisdiction or an interpretation on the clause of the agreement which is wholly contrary to law, the Court would be entitled to set things right.
G. Ramachandra Reddy & Co vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 April, 2009
In G.Ramachandra Reddy and Co. Vs. Union of India [2009 (6) SCC 414], the Supreme Court pointed out that an award can be interfered, if it is based on a wrong proposition of law. One more aspect in G.Ramachandra Reddy is that the Arbitrator was found by the Court in that case to have taken into consideration the correspondence that took place between the parties, that constituted offer and acceptance.
Central Bank Of India Ltd. vs Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 September, 1964
In Central Bank of India v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1965 SC 1288), the Supreme Court indicated that the Court must be able to say with certainty what the intention was, not that it may add something to the language used by the parties. However, the Court cautioned that plain and categorical language cannot be radically changed by relying upon the surrounding circumstances.
M/S Commercial Auto Sales(P) Ltd vs M/S Auto Sales (Properties) on 9 September, 2009
49. Even in Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited v. Auto Sales (Properties) [2009 (9) SCC 620], the Supreme Court pointed out that the intention of the parties to an instrument must be gathered from the terms thereof, in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
In Mcdermott International v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC 18], the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in Pure Helium v. ONGC [(2003) 8 SCC 593] and D.D. Sharma v. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 325] and held as follows: