Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.60 seconds)Section 9 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Indian Easements Act, 1882
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
State Of Orissa & Another vs Kalinga Construction Co. (P) Ltd on 11 September, 1970
8. Acknowledging that the Arbitrator is the final judge of facts, the Apex Court in State of Orissa and Anr. v. Kalinga Construction Co. (P) Ltd., held that the High Court erred in considering the matter as a court of appeal and in re-evaluating the evidence and that it further erred in recording a finding in reversal of the conclusions of the arbitrator.
Hindustan Tea Co. vs K. Sashikant Co. And Anr. on 13 November, 1986
Further, in H.M. Kamaudding Ansari and Co. v. Union of India a three-Judge Bench of this Court has overruled the decision in Raman Iron Foundry case and the Court while interpreting similar term of the contract observed that it gives wider power to the Union of India to recover the amount claimed by appropriating any sum then due or which at any time may become due to the contractors under other contracts and the Court observed that clause 18 of the standard contract confers ample powers on the Union of India to withhold the amount and no injunction order could be passed restraining the Union of India from withholding the amount.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs Indian Carbon Ltd. on 20 October, 1983
Similar views were again expressed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Carbon ltd., ; Jawahar Lal Wadhwa and Anr. v. Haripada Chakroberty, ; Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, ; M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala and Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 30; Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr., where even a plausible view taken by the Arbitrator was held not to be open to Court interference. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr., the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to reappreciate the evidence.
Jawahar Lal Wadhwa And Anr. vs Haripada Chakraborty on 18 November, 1987
Similar views were again expressed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Carbon ltd., ; Jawahar Lal Wadhwa and Anr. v. Haripada Chakroberty, ; Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, ; M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala and Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 30; Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr., where even a plausible view taken by the Arbitrator was held not to be open to Court interference. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr., the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to reappreciate the evidence.
Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 20 January, 1989
Similar views were again expressed in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Indian Carbon ltd., ; Jawahar Lal Wadhwa and Anr. v. Haripada Chakroberty, ; Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, ; M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala and Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 30; Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr., where even a plausible view taken by the Arbitrator was held not to be open to Court interference. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Anr., the Court held that if the reasons appear per se to be not unreasonable and irrational the Court ought not to reappreciate the evidence.