Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sehgal vs Pnb Housing Finance Ltd on 16 February, 2023 cites

Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963

"9. The position in law has been noticed by this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram [AIR 1963 SC 1685 : (1964) 3 SCR 164] and Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. [AIR 1967 SC 1030 : (1967) 1 SCR 105] to the effect that the arbitrator's award both on facts and law is final; that there is no appeal from his verdict; that the court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication, unless the objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it. In understanding what would be an error of law on the face of the award, the following observations in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. [(1922-23) 50 IA 324 : AIR 1923 PC 66] , a decision of the Privy Council, are relevant (IA p. 331) 'An error in law on the face of the award means, in Their Lordships' view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 404 - J C Shah - Full Document

Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan vs Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore on 19 August, 1966

"9. The position in law has been noticed by this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram [AIR 1963 SC 1685 : (1964) 3 SCR 164] and Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. [AIR 1967 SC 1030 : (1967) 1 SCR 105] to the effect that the arbitrator's award both on facts and law is final; that there is no appeal from his verdict; that the court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication, unless the objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it. In understanding what would be an error of law on the face of the award, the following observations in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. [(1922-23) 50 IA 324 : AIR 1923 PC 66] , a decision of the Privy Council, are relevant (IA p. 331) 'An error in law on the face of the award means, in Their Lordships' view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous.'
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 143 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923

"9. The position in law has been noticed by this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram [AIR 1963 SC 1685 : (1964) 3 SCR 164] and Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. [AIR 1967 SC 1030 : (1967) 1 SCR 105] to the effect that the arbitrator's award both on facts and law is final; that there is no appeal from his verdict; that the court cannot review his award and correct any mistake in his adjudication, unless the objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it. In understanding what would be an error of law on the face of the award, the following observations in Champsey Bhara & Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. [(1922-23) 50 IA 324 : AIR 1923 PC 66] , a decision of the Privy Council, are relevant (IA p. 331) 'An error in law on the face of the award means, in Their Lordships' view, that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous.'
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 286 - Full Document

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] this Court again examined this matter and stated that where the error of finding of fact having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various possible viewpoints, the interference in the award based on an erroneous finding of fact is OMP (Comm) 25/2019 (CNR No. DLST010075552019) Page No. 19 of 21 permissible and similarly, if an award is based by applying a principle of law which is patently erroneous, and but for such erroneous application of legal principle, the award could not have been made, such award is liable to be set aside by holding that there has been a legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 270 - Full Document
1   2 Next