Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Food Corporation Of India vs Joginderpal Mohinderpal on 3 March, 1989
In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Anr. , Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. and Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. .
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Anr. , Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. and Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. .
D.D.A. vs Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 4 August, 2004
17. In my considered view, these issues have not been dealt with as an appellate Court since that would not be the scope of scrutiny of objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Act. It is not the function of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence or to interfere with the award merely on the basis that the Court would come to a different conclusion on the material available before the arbitrator. It is only in the eventuality of the award being perverse that the second interference would be called for, as held by the Division Bench in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2004(3) Arb. L.R. 481. The apex Court has repeatedly cautioned that unless an award is contrary to law and misconduct is with reference to either personal misconduct of the arbitrator or misconduct of law, an award ought not to be interfered with. It is not ordinarily for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and in the absence of the award being absurd, reasonableness is not a matter to be considered.
State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions on 31 July, 2003
In State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions , it was once again reiterated that Section 30 of the Act providing for setting aside an award is restrictive in its operation and unless one of the conditions specified therein is satisfied, an award cannot be set aside. The arbitrator is a Judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final and thus the Court is precluded from re-appraising the evidence. Thus, an error apparent on the face of the record would not imply closer scrutiny on the merits of the documents and material on record. Once it is found that the view of the arbitrator is plausible one, the Court should refrain from interfering.
Hindustan Tea Co. vs K. Sashikant Co. And Anr. on 13 November, 1986
In fact, in Hindustan Tea Co. v. K.Sashikant & Co. , it was held by the Supreme Court that the arbitrator is made the final arbitor of the disputes between the parties and the award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts.
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 1989
In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Anr. , Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. and Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. .
Hari Om Maheshwari vs Vinitkumar Parikh on 9 December, 2004
In Hari Om Maheshwari v. Vinikumar Parikh , the Supreme Court has laid down that the ground of refusal of an adjournment by an arbitrator is not a ground for setting aside the award. The refusal of an arbitrator not to entertain an application subsequently would not call for any interference. It was held that the High Court fell into an error in interfering in such a matter with a view to give opportunity to the party who had failed to appear. The position is thus of its own making by respondent No. 2 by refusing to join the arbitration proceedings at the final stage of hearing.
1