Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Markfed Vanaspati And Allied ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 14 September, 2007 cites

Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989

In Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala and Anr. in para 29 at page 53, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. speaking for the Court observed that the court in a non-speaking award cannot probe into the reasoning of the award. The Court further observed that only in a speaking award the court may look into the reasoning of the award, and it is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the arbitrator's reasons cannot be challenged. The arbitrator's appraisement of the evidence is never a matter for the court to entertain.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 613 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Bijendra Nath Srivastava vs Mayank Srivastava on 10 August, 1994

12. This Court, in Bijendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava and Ors. in para 20 at page 133 and para 31 at page 138, observed that the arbitrator is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him, unless the arbitration agreement or deed of settlement so required. If the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision, then it would be open to the court to set aside the award upon finding an error of law. The reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator cannot, however, be challenged. It is not open to the court to look for the reasons and proceed to examine whether they were right or erroneous. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of the evidence. It will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a judge of the evidence before the arbitrator. The Court should approach an award with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 86 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999

In Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Anr. in para 44 at page 309, the Court observed that in a non-speaking award the jurisdiction of the court is limited. It is not open to the court to speculate where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclusion. It is also not possible to admit to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator has reached his conclusion where it is not disclosed by the terms of the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 335 - Full Document
1