Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)
M. Gangareddy, Rep. By His G.P.A., A. ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By The ... on 14 June, 1996
cites
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S. Associated Engineering ... on 24 March, 1989
" Looked at from another point, if there was a dispute as to whether under this term of the contract the arbitrator was prohibited from awarding interest pendente lite, that was a matter which fell within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, as the arbitrator would have to interpret Sub-clause (g) of Clause 13 of the contract and decide whether that clause prohibits from awarding interest pendente lite. In that case it cannot be said that the arbitrator had wandered outside the contract to deny to him jurisdiction to decide the question regarding payment of interest pendente lite. Even if we were to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on paragraphs 26 and 29 of the Associated Engineering Co. case (2 supra) we think that the arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction in awarding interest pendente lite. "
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
But, in the face of the prohibition contained in Clause 69, which was referred to and relied on by the Supreme Court in Durgaram Prasad's case (6 supra), the ratio of the dicision in G.C.Roy's case (7 supra) cannot be applied and even pendente lite interest cannot be awarded, not to speak of interest for pre-reference period.
Jugal Kishore Prabhatilal Sharma And ... vs Vijayendra Prabhatilal Sharma And Anr on 22 October, 1992
23. As regards the interest for the pre-reference period, the law laid down in Jena's case (8 supra) has not been distrubed by the Constitution Bench in C.C. Roy's case (7 supra) as clarified by the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Vijayendra (9 supra) and State ofOrissa v. B.N. Agarwala (10 supra).
State Of Orissa vs B.N. Agarwala on 24 November, 1992
22. The learned Arbitrator did not have the benefit of the exposition of law laid down in that decision as the award was passed much earlier to that decision.
The Board Of Trustees For Theport Of ... vs Engineers-De-Space-Age on 7 December, 1995
That is why the Calcutta Port Trust case (13 supra) is of great relevance to the issue we are dealing with.
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Sudhir Brothers vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 16 November, 1995
Dr. Anand, J. Speaking for the Supreme Court in Sudhir Brothers v. Delhi Development Authority, succinctly summarised the legal position as follows:
Durgaram Prasad, Engineers And ... vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The ... on 1 March, 1996
24. If the matter rests there, there would be no difficulty at all and we need not proceed further to consider whether interest-pendente lite or pre-reference-should be awarded. The decision of the Supreme Court in Durgaram Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. (6 supra) is another milestone implanted in the controversial arena pertaining to the arbitrator's power to award interest.