Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)
Union Of India vs M/S D.Khosla on 9 May, 2022 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc vs R.V. Rayanim Etc. Etc on 15 January, 1990

15. As is held by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. R.V.Rayanim and others (1990) 1 SCC 433 that in the matter of challenging the award there are often two distinct and different grounds, one is error apparent on the face of award and the other is that the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction. In the latter case, the Court can look into arbitration agreement but in the former it cannot, unless agreement was incorporated or recited in the award. The award may be remitted or set aside on the ground that the arbitrator in making it had exceeded his jurisdiction and evidence of 15 MA No.104/2014 matters not appearing on face of it will be admitted in order to establish whether the jurisdiction was exceeded or not, because nature of dispute is something which has to be determined outside the award----whatever might be said about it in the award or by the arbitrator. In a case of error apparent on the face of record, it has to be established that an item or amount, which the arbitrator has no jurisdiction to take into consideration, has been awarded or granted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 37 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M/S. Alopi Parshad & Sons, Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 January, 1960

Ltd.(supra) by relying upon the following passage from M/s. Alopi Parshad Vs. Union of India [1960] 2 SCR 703 which is to the following effect: - There it was observed that a contract is not frustrated merely because the circumstances in which the contract was made, altered. The Contract Act does not enable a party to a contract to ignore the express covenants thereof, and to claim payment of consideration for performance of the contract at rates different from the stipulated rates, on some vague plea of equity. The parties to an executory contract are often faced, in the course of carrying it out, with a turn of event which they did not at all anticipate, a wholly abnormal rise or fall in prices, a sudden depreciation of currency, an unexpected obstacle to execution, or the like. There is no general liberty reserved to the courts to absolve a party from liability to perform his part of the contract merely because on account of an uncontemplated turn of events, the performance of the contract may become onerous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 298 - J C Shah - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd vs C. Rajasekhar Rao on 27 July, 1987

Ltd.(supra) by relying upon the following passage from M/s. Alopi Parshad Vs. Union of India [1960] 2 SCR 703 which is to the following effect: - There it was observed that a contract is not frustrated merely because the circumstances in which the contract was made, altered. The Contract Act does not enable a party to a contract to ignore the express covenants thereof, and to claim payment of consideration for performance of the contract at rates different from the stipulated rates, on some vague plea of equity. The parties to an executory contract are often faced, in the course of carrying it out, with a turn of event which they did not at all anticipate, a wholly abnormal rise or fall in prices, a sudden depreciation of currency, an unexpected obstacle to execution, or the like. There is no general liberty reserved to the courts to absolve a party from liability to perform his part of the contract merely because on account of an uncontemplated turn of events, the performance of the contract may become onerous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 84 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 Next