Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Food Corporation Of India vs Joginderpal Mohinderpal on 3 March, 1989
In Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. it has been held that the arbitrator on interpretation of arbitration clause arrive at a conclusion and when such a construction was conceivable and possible, Court has no jurisdiction to modify the award.
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999
22. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant has written letter dated 20.5.1987 informing the department that excavations have been made and that the Engineers of the department have refused to associate with the measurement of the excavations and that the measurements taken by the Engineers of the claimant will be binding on the department. Again by a letter dated 31-3-1987, it has been informed that during the course of the excavation of hard rock it is found that geological strata of laminated rock, there is lossening of adjacent layer pockets beyond the canal section resulting in excess excavation of pockets beyond the excavation of canal section and that the excavation is not negligible quantity which has not occurred due to any convenience for the claimant nor due to any advertent action on their part. The department has not replied for the same. Therefore, it should be treated as a permission granted. The fact remains that the claimant has not secured any written permission either for excess excavation or for payment for extra lead charges towards disposal of 38,515 cu.mtrs. of excavated materials which leads to 2 kms. Thus, as held by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited's Case (Supra) the award of the arbitrator is clearly exceeds his jurisdiction.
Union Of India Owning And Administering ... vs Kalinga Textiles Ltd. Company And Anr. on 26 February, 1968
In Union of India v. Kalinga Construction Company Private Limited the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a proceeding to set aside an award, appellate Court cannot sit in appeal over the conclusion of the arbitrator by re-examining ant' re-appraising the evidence considered by the arbitrator and held the the conclusion reached by him is wrong.
K.V. George vs Secretary To Govt., Water And ... on 5 October, 1989
Though the claimant has sought for award of extra payment towards dressing of the side slopes, he has failed to claim the amount towards mechanical lead charges for disposal of the said 38515 cu.mtrs. of excavated material with lead upto 2 Kms. The said order of the arbitrator has become the rule of the Court is Miscellaneous Case No. 52/1988 dated 3-4-1989. The Apex Court in K.V. George v. The Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department, Trivandrum and Anr. has held that all issues arose out of a contract which could have been raised in the first claim petition filed before the arbitrator. This having not been done, the second claim petition before the arbitrator raising the remaining disputes is clearly barred. Learned Counsel for the claimant submits that having regard to Clause-35 of the agreement, opportunity is provided to the claimant to put up all his claims before the release of the contract. This argument of the claimant is clearly not acceptable. Clause-35 of the agreement states that after completion of the work and prior to final payment, the contractor shall furnish to the concerned Executive Engineer a release of the claims against the Government arising out of the contract other than claims specifically identified, evaluated and excepted from the operation of the release by the contractor. But the question is whether the claimant could have raised claim No. 8 along with the previous claim. According to the contractor he had excavated in all 83,151 cu.mtrs, out of which 38,515 cu.mtrs. have been excavated upto 14.2.1986. Therefore he could have made this claim along with the previous claim. Therefore, claim No. 8 could have been raised along with the first claim filed before the arbitrator. This having not been done, the present claim is clearly barred. Therefore, the arbitrator is not justified in entertaining claim No. 8.
Section 29 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Shyama Charan Agarwala & Sons vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 15 July, 2002
In
Shyam Charan Agarwala's Case (Supra) the Apex Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court, whereby the High Court had interfered with the award of the arbitrator on item No. 3 on the ground that the award is outside the terms of contract. We have also considered the various decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the claimant which have been rendered in the special facts of each case.
K. P. Poulose vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 21 April, 1975
In K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala
the Apex Court has held that the misconduct under Section 30(1) comprises of legal misconduct which is complete if the arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at on inconsistent conclusion even on his own rinding or arrives at a decision ignoring the very material documents which throws abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision.
Government Of Karnataka vs K. Sudhakar Reddy on 8 September, 1992
In identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Government of Karnataka v. K. Sudhakar Rao has held that if the State wants to recover 18% interest on the mobilization advance given to the contractor, there could hardly be any justification in its grievance that the arbitrator could not have awarded interest at that rate. Therefore, we are of the view that the award of interest at 18% p.a. is just and reasonable and the said finding does not call for interference.
1