Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
M/S. Geojit Bnp Paribas Financial ... vs Mr. S. Gomathinayagam on 23 January, 2020 cites

Associated Engineering Co vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 15 July, 1991

10. Mr. T.K. Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would at the outset contend that the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded the scope of reference and the terms of the agreement between the parties. He would contend that therefore clearly fell foul of the Judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 in the case of "Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another". The counsel has drawn my attention to the paragraphs hereinbelow extracted in support of the above contention:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 345 - T K Thommen - Full Document

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

The rationale of this rule is the nature of the dispute is something which has to be 12/21 http://www.judis.nic.in O.P.No.267 of 2014 determined outside and independent of what appears in the award. Such jurisdictional error needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award. See M/s. Alopi Parshad & Sons. Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1960] 2 SCR 793;
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 298 - J C Shah - Full Document

Scm Solifert Ltd. vs Competition Commission Of India on 17 April, 2018

30. In the instant case, the umpire decided matters strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He outstepped the confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the designated area. He diagressed far away from the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the principles state in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission., [1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The Managing Director.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 59 - A Mishra - Full Document

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972

30. In the instant case, the umpire decided matters strikingly outside his jurisdiction. He outstepped the confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the designated area. He diagressed far away from the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract and awarded in excess of his authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the principles state in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission., [1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The Managing Director.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 119 - K K Mathew - Full Document
1