Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963
9. As back as in 1963 in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram , the nature of an arbitration award and its binding effect have been more prominently pronounced in para 13, which is gainfully quoted below:
U.P. State Electricity Board vs M/S Searsole Chemicals Limited on 21 February, 2001
10. The respondent-supplier placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Searsole Chemicals Ltd. , which is also on the same settled legal proposition that when an arbitrator has applied his mind to the pleadings and the evidence adduced, the court has no scope to reappreciate the same for arriving at a different view.
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 term 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.
Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991
19. The decision, which has been referred to on the question of interest is in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy . In that case, the question, which came to be decided, was in respect of interest pendente lite in which it has been held that an arbitrator can award such interest having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Such a question of interest pendente lite is not before us and, therefore, the said decision has no relevance in the case on hand. That apart, we have already held above that the State-appellants were entitled to recover from the respondent-supplier the 'extra cost', which was involved in procuring the short quantity of iodised salt from the open market and in that view of the matter, we find no reason to take a different view from the learned arbitrator about the payment of interest in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above. It would further be seen that by the two agreements, the supplier was required to supply 10 B.G. rakes of iodised salt (18,000 MT), but he booked only 7 B.G. rakes (13,900 MT) and out of 7 B.G. rakes he could not supply 2000 MT iodised salt. Thus, there was 4,100 MT plus 2,000 MT = 6,100 MT, which is the total shortage for which as per provision of Clause 14 of the agreement, the State-appellants are entitled to recover 'extra cost' from the respondent-supplier if the same is to be brought or procured through other sources. Thus, it cannot be said that the entire quantity of short supply is attributable to the railway transportation only as initially there was a shortage of 4,100 MT at the booking stage. Considering the entire conduct of the respondent-supplier, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned arbitrator as affirmed by the learned District Judge about refusal to award any interest.
Section 31 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 July, 2001
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 term 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.