Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.28 seconds)
M/S Cochin Shipyard Ltd vs M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd on 6 November, 2015 cites

State Bank Of India vs Ram Das And Anr on 29 October, 2003

4. At the very outset, we are obliged to state that the respondent has not challenged the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, as far as examination of the umpire is concerned, it stands foreclosed. As far as liberty to examine the witness to substantiate the claim for the rule making Court is concerned, it is contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for the appellant, that the respondent has been allowed to examine the employee as a witness to prove the misconduct of the learned arbitrator in conducting of the arbitral proceedings as the grounds had been raised pertaining to grant of adequate opportunity to the respondent and the recording of minutes. In essence, the stand of the respondent was that there had been violation of the principles of the natural justice by the 5 learned arbitrator. It is urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is totally unwarranted to examine witnesses for the purpose of substantiating the claims before the Court which has the authority to accept the objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act or to pass a decree in terms of the award. In essence, the attack on the order by Mr. Ranjit Kumar is that the witness No. 2, General Manager, could not have been permitted by the High Court to be examined as a witness in the Court to prove any kind of legal misconduct, for the same has to be demonstrated from the records of the arbitral proceedings as well as the evidence adduced before the learned arbitrator. It is further contended that the witness sought to be examined had already been examined before the learned arbitrator and his evidence can be read by the trial court to discern and decide if there is any perversity of approach by the arbitrator. Learned Solicitor General, to bolster his submissions, has placed reliance on Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Another 1, Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board, Haryana and Others2, 1 (1999) 9 SCC 449 2 (2002) 3 SCC 175 State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions3, State Bank of India v. Ram Das and Another4, D.D. Sharma v. Union of India5, Hari Om Maheshwari v. Vinitkumar Parikh6, Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.7 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - S B Sinha - Full Document

D.D. Sharma vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2004

4. At the very outset, we are obliged to state that the respondent has not challenged the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, as far as examination of the umpire is concerned, it stands foreclosed. As far as liberty to examine the witness to substantiate the claim for the rule making Court is concerned, it is contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for the appellant, that the respondent has been allowed to examine the employee as a witness to prove the misconduct of the learned arbitrator in conducting of the arbitral proceedings as the grounds had been raised pertaining to grant of adequate opportunity to the respondent and the recording of minutes. In essence, the stand of the respondent was that there had been violation of the principles of the natural justice by the 5 learned arbitrator. It is urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is totally unwarranted to examine witnesses for the purpose of substantiating the claims before the Court which has the authority to accept the objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act or to pass a decree in terms of the award. In essence, the attack on the order by Mr. Ranjit Kumar is that the witness No. 2, General Manager, could not have been permitted by the High Court to be examined as a witness in the Court to prove any kind of legal misconduct, for the same has to be demonstrated from the records of the arbitral proceedings as well as the evidence adduced before the learned arbitrator. It is further contended that the witness sought to be examined had already been examined before the learned arbitrator and his evidence can be read by the trial court to discern and decide if there is any perversity of approach by the arbitrator. Learned Solicitor General, to bolster his submissions, has placed reliance on Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Another 1, Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board, Haryana and Others2, 1 (1999) 9 SCC 449 2 (2002) 3 SCC 175 State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions3, State Bank of India v. Ram Das and Another4, D.D. Sharma v. Union of India5, Hari Om Maheshwari v. Vinitkumar Parikh6, Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.7 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 47 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd vs Hindustan Coper Ltd on 5 April, 2005

4. At the very outset, we are obliged to state that the respondent has not challenged the order passed by the High Court and, therefore, as far as examination of the umpire is concerned, it stands foreclosed. As far as liberty to examine the witness to substantiate the claim for the rule making Court is concerned, it is contended by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for the appellant, that the respondent has been allowed to examine the employee as a witness to prove the misconduct of the learned arbitrator in conducting of the arbitral proceedings as the grounds had been raised pertaining to grant of adequate opportunity to the respondent and the recording of minutes. In essence, the stand of the respondent was that there had been violation of the principles of the natural justice by the 5 learned arbitrator. It is urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is totally unwarranted to examine witnesses for the purpose of substantiating the claims before the Court which has the authority to accept the objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act or to pass a decree in terms of the award. In essence, the attack on the order by Mr. Ranjit Kumar is that the witness No. 2, General Manager, could not have been permitted by the High Court to be examined as a witness in the Court to prove any kind of legal misconduct, for the same has to be demonstrated from the records of the arbitral proceedings as well as the evidence adduced before the learned arbitrator. It is further contended that the witness sought to be examined had already been examined before the learned arbitrator and his evidence can be read by the trial court to discern and decide if there is any perversity of approach by the arbitrator. Learned Solicitor General, to bolster his submissions, has placed reliance on Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Another 1, Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board, Haryana and Others2, 1 (1999) 9 SCC 449 2 (2002) 3 SCC 175 State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions3, State Bank of India v. Ram Das and Another4, D.D. Sharma v. Union of India5, Hari Om Maheshwari v. Vinitkumar Parikh6, Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd.7 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited8.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 158 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Corp vs M/S Wig Brothers Builders & ... on 8 October, 2010

In Wig Brothers (supra) while dealing with the chal- lenge under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, the Court opined that a court while considering a challenge to an award under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, does not sit as an appellate court and it cannot reappreciate the ma- terial on record. The Court further proceeded to state that an award is not open to challenge on the ground that the ar- bitrator had reached a wrong conclusion or had failed to ap- preciate some facts, but if there is an error apparent on the face of the award or if there is misconduct on the part of the arbitrator or legal misconduct in conducting the proceed- ings or in making the award, the court will interfere with the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Fiza Developers And Inter-Trade Pvt ... vs Amci (India) Private Limited on 12 September, 2008

It has to be shown from the proceedings carried on before the arbitrator and the evidence adduced before the arbitrator. Evidence cannot be adduced in court to substantiate the challenge on the score of legal misconduct. We are not entering upon any discussion pertaining to moral misconduct as that is not the issue in the case at hand. The decision in Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade Private Limited (supra) has been rendered by this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The context being different, we are not in- clined to apply the principles enumerated therein to the ob- jection filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act, for 1 the simon pure reason that the authorities are plenty to make it limpid that the issue of legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator should be manifestly discernable from the record.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 151 - D V Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next