Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.77 seconds)The Finance Act, 1996
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd vs Daelim Industrial Company Ltd on 6 September, 2007
Para 24 of the said decision (Numaligarh) dealt with the peculiar situation arising therein necessitating intervention by the Apex Court.
Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs M/S Dewan Chand Ram Saran on 25 April, 2012
Similarly, in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) the proposition laid down was that if the provisions of agreement are possible of two interpretations and the arbitrator takes a plausible view then no interference would be required.
General Assurance Society Ltd vs Chandumull Jain And Anr on 7 February, 1966
31. The constitution bench of the Apex Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain : AIR 1966 SC 1644, while dealing with provisions of contract observed as under:-
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), while dealing with the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Apex Court has held as under in para 54, 55, 56:-
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd vs M/S Annapurna Construction on 29 August, 2003
In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Annapurna Construction: 2003 (8) SCC 154, the Apex Court observed as under in para 22:-
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
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."