Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.63 seconds)
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 28 August, 1992 cites

Secretary Irrigation Department ... vs G.C. Roy on 12 December, 1991

7. The question of interest can be easily disposed of as it is covered by recent decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer to the latest decision of a five-judge Bench of the Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department of Orissa v. G.C. Roy (1991) 6 J.T. 349. Though the said decision deals with the power of the Arbitrator to award interest pendente lite, the principle of the decision makes it clear that the arbitrator is competent to award interest for the period commencing with the date of award to the date of decree or date of realisation, whichever is earlier. This is also quite logical for, while award of interest, for the period prior to a arbitrator entering upon the reference is a matter of substantive law, the grant of interest for the post-award period is a matter of procedure. Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure provides both for awarding of interest pendente lite as well as for the post-decree period and the principle of Section 34 has been held applicable to proceedings before the arbitrator, though the section as such may not apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 639 - K N Singh - Full Document

Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 1989

8. Now coming to the High Court's decision regarding items Nos. 2 and 5, Sri Nariman, for the appellant contends that, in setting aside the award on these items, the Court has overlooked that it was dealing with a non-speaking award and travelled far beyond the scope of permissible grounds of judicial review of such an award. He draws our attention to certain passages in the judgment of the Division Bench which, he submits, are contrary to the principles laid down in several decisions of this Court. In dealing with the award on items No. 2, the Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 288 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923

10. In our opinion, there is great force in the contentions urged by learned Counsel. The High Court has set aside the award on the above items on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the award. This is clearly incorrect. The award is a non-speaking one and contains no reasoning which can be declared to be faulty. The scope of the Court's jurisdiction in interfering with non-speaking award on the above ground is extremely limited. The rule of limitation in this respect was enunciated by the Judicial Committee almost seven decades ago in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. L.R. 1922-50 I.A. 324, in words which have been consistently and uniformly followed and applied in all subsequent decisions. Lord Dunedin said, after noting with disapproval certain attempts to extend the area of the court's interference with such an award:
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 286 - Full Document

Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989

13. There is, however, apart from the existence of an "error apparent on the face of the award", another angle from which a non-speaking award can be considered by the Court and, if necessary, interfered with. This ground for impeaching a non-speaking award and its limitations have been explained by this Court in the Sudarsan Trading Co, case earlier referred to. Sabyasachi Mukherjee J. (at p. 685 of [1989] 1 S.C.R.) enunciated the rule and its limitation thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 613 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Needle Industries Ltd. By Secretary And ... vs The Additional Commissioner For ... on 28 October, 1980

See the observations in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147 and Regina v. Noseda, Field, Knight and Fitzpatrick [1958] 1 SLR 793. But, in the instant case the court had examined the deferent claims not to find out whether these claims were within the disputes referable to the arbitrator, but to find out whether in arriving at the decision, the arbitrator had acted correctly or incorrectly. This, in our opinion, the court had no jurisdiction to do, namely, substitution of its own evaluation of the conclusion of law or fact to come to the conclusion that the arbitrator had acted contrary to the bargain between the parties. Whether a particular amount was liable to be paid on damages liable to be sustained, was a decision within the competency of the arbitrator in this case. By purporting to construe the contract the court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond jurisdiciton. It has to be determined that there is a distinction between disputes as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the disputes as to in what way that jurisdiction should be exercised The learned Judge further proceeds to point out that Courts are sometime persuaded to rely on this ground to set aside an award when, actually, what they were embarking upon was in interpretation of the contract and a criticism of the arbitrator's approach thereto. It is clear that this is what has happened in the present case also. We have already mentioned that the High Court has not rested its decision on any question of the arbitrator having exceeded his jurisdiction or travelled beyond the contract; it has clearly held it to be a case of "error apparent on the face of the award". In our view, the case cannot be brought within the scope of the "excess of jurisdiction" rule either.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 82 - S Mohan - Full Document
1