Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (3.06 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Delhi Development Authority vs M/S. S.S. Jetley on 21 August, 2000
24. From the aforesaid judgments and settled law, it appears to
the Court that the Arbitral award in the present case can be
sustainable in law as also in the context of the particular contractual
provisions. It has been laid down in the referred judgments for
award of additional cost i.e. finding of fault, existence of relevant
evidence and similar contractual clauses like 6.4, 12.2 and 42.2 are
present in the case. The Arbitral Tribunal has in fact rejected the
claim Nos. 2.3 and 2.4 of the respondent pertaining to loss of profit
and delayed accrual of contract price in the extended period and
OMP No.589/2014 Page 19 of 28
only awarded the component of damages suffered on account of
machinery cost and overheads in the extended period.
K.V. Mohd. Zakir vs Regional Sports Centre on 16 September, 2009
30. The arguments of the petitioner as regards the award of the
relevant claims by the Arbitral Tribunal are without any merit, a
general conspectus of the contentions of the petitioner would reveal
that the main of the case of petitioner is that this Court should re-
appreciate the evidence and upset the unanimous factual findings of
the Arbitral Tribunal and yet further that instead of the interpretation
placed on the contract terms by the Arbitral Tribunal, another
interpretation of the contract terms is possible and that the Court
OMP No.589/2014 Page 22 of 28
should uphold that alternative interpretation. As regards the finding
of fact as to responsibility for delay in completion of work, the
Supreme Court has consistently held that such findings are purely
within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and cannot be
challenged. . The Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Mohammed
Zakir v. Regional Sports Centre (2009) 9 SCC 357, has held as
under:
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
31. Even if the Arbitral Tribunal has taken the plausible view on
interpretation of the relevant contractual terms, and assuming that
an alternative interpretation is possible, the law is well settled that
even if two interpretations are possible, if the interpretation given by
the Arbitral Tribunal is a possible view, even though the Court may
have a different view, the Award will not be interfered with by the
Court under Section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India (1999) 9 SCC
449, has held as under:
Mecon Limited vs Pioneer Fabricators (P) Ltd. on 21 November, 2007
14. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has
referred the decision of this Court in the case of Mecon Limited v.
Pioneer Fabricators (P) Ltd. 2007 (4) ArbLR 323 (Delhi) wherein
it was held that "if a party is responsible for the delay, it cannot avail
of the benefit of the delay."
P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brokers (P)Ltd vs M/S. B.H.H. Securities (P) Ltd. & Ors on 14 October, 2011
35. It appears that the petitioner is trying to challenge the arbitral
award in the manner which is akin to an appellate proceeding
involving a total re-hearing of the matter and re-appreciation of
evidence, and as per the consistent dicta of the Supreme Court is
impermissible in law. A recent observation of the Supreme Court in
the case of P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers Private
OMP No.589/2014 Page 24 of 28
Limited v. B.H.H. Securities Private Limited and Others (2012)
1 SCC 594, is apposite in this regard and is reproduced as under:
Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Industries vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2007
The Supreme Court has expounded on the principle as to the
sanctity of the decision of the Arbitrator in the case of Markfed
Vanaspati and Allied Industries v. Union of India (2007) 7 SCC
679, wherein it was observed as under: