Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.49 seconds)Section 21 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar And Others vs Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar on 13 November, 1959
18. Even u/S. 39 of the Central Act, appeal is provided to the appellate Court from the original decrees of the Court passing certain orders like setting aside or refusing to set aside the award. U/s. 30 of the Central Act, an award shall not be set aside except on one or more grounds slated therein that an arbitrator or umpire misconduct himself of the proceedings; that an award has been passed after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. From all these circumstances, it is clear that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the employer, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar supra, that this appeal is nothing but a continuation of the suit cannot be accepted in respect of the applicability of Act I of 1990.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991
In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering an award in which number of reasons were given by the arbitrator, and from the material on record in that case, the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator had passed an award with regard to certain items which were not provided in the contract. In the instant case, it is a non-speaking award. No reasons are given by the arbitrator.
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar And Mudaliar ... on 6 February, 1985
29. It is not the case of the employer that the contractor was not entitled to escalate
costs. Even in the counter, the employer simply disputed the rates Claimed by the contractor. Presumably, the arbitrator awarded the costs suggested by the employer only. Moreover, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar, , such escalated costs a contractor would be entitled to both in equity and law. The Supreme Court, in the above case, has held as under:--
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
This was the general plea regarding all the items of claims and the arbitrator has accepted it. Even otherwise, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), according to which interest on interest could be awarded as general damages, and having regard to the facts of the case, we do not think that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in A.A.O. No. 1148 of 1986 supports the case of the employer in any manner. Hence, the third contention of the employer is hereby rejected.