Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.27 seconds)Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 41 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Satyapal Wasson on 3 January, 1979
The judgment in the case
of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is again on a similar point and as
such the same does not serve the case of the appellant.
Union Of India vs Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd on 14 September, 1966
He drew our attention to a passage extracted
therein from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Private Ltd.2 wherein the following
has been observed-
State Of Rajasthan & Anr vs M/S. Ferro Concrete Construction ... on 22 April, 2009
In State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held
that if in a reasoned award the claim of a contractor is equated to proof of
the claim it would be a case of legal misconduct. Such is not the case here.
In the instant case the arbitrator has given cogent reasons and scrutinised
the claims of the claimant. He has relied on the documentary evidence
produced by the parties. The award reveals so on its face.
M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
14. Mr. Ghosh relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dyna Technologies Private Limited vs. Crompton Greaves
3 (2009) 12 SCC 1
Page 6 of 32
2025:CHC-OS:123-DB
Limited4 reported at to contend that the arbitrator's reasoning should be
proper, intelligible and adequate.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
82. As regards the judgement in the case of Ssangyong Engineering &
Construction Co. Ltd. (supra), it would suffice to say that the same was
rendered in the context of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where
grounds for setting aside the arbitral award are absolutely different from the
grounds under the said Act of 1940. Indeed the ground of perversity would
be available under both the Acts but for the award to be perverse it would
have to be demonstrated that the same was based on no evidence. The
appellant has failed to demonstrate that the award is based on no evidence.
When the award refers to documents on record it was the duty of the
appellant to demonstrate that there were no documents on record. The
appellant has not run such a case.