Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)M/S. Canara Nidhi Limited vs M. Shashikala on 23 September, 2019
15545 and 15546 0f 2017) ; UOI v. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No. 8530 of 2009) ; Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd.
v. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2009) ; M/s.
Canara Nidhi Ltd. v. M. Shashikala (Civil Appeal No. 7544-7545
of 2019) and PSA Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of
V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin (Civil Appeal Nos.3699 &
3700 of 2018) in support of his arguments.
Psa Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs The Board Of Trustees Of V.O. ... on 28 July, 2021
15545 and 15546 0f 2017) ; UOI v. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No. 8530 of 2009) ; Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd.
v. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2009) ; M/s.
Canara Nidhi Ltd. v. M. Shashikala (Civil Appeal No. 7544-7545
of 2019) and PSA Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of
V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin (Civil Appeal Nos.3699 &
3700 of 2018) in support of his arguments.
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
submitted that if there is any patent illegality in the award of the
7
Arbitration Appeal No.28 of 2009
Arbitrator or as contemplated under S. 34(2) (b) (ii) of the Act, if it is in
conflict with the public policy of India, the same can be looked into and
the court under Section 34, can certainly interfere. In this case, the
Arbitrator has awarded an amount of ₹25 lakhs by way of loss of stock of
raw bones, which according to the Insurance Company, is not 'stock in
process' and hence not covered by the terms of the policy. As amount has
been awarded for a head for which there is no insurance cover, the award
of the Arbitrator relating to the said portion is an illegality and against
public policy and hence the court below was justified in interfering with
the same, goes the argument. Reference was made to DLF Home
Developers Ltd. (M/s.) v. Martin George (2021 (3) KHC 590) , a
Division Bench decision of this Court and also Associate Builders v.
DDA (AIR 2015 SC 620) ; The Project Director, NHAI Nos.45 E
& 220, NHAI v. M.Hakeem & ors. [MANUPATRA 2020(4) CTC
582] and DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Martin George (2021 (3)
KLT Online 1019) in support of his argument.
M/S. Dlf Home Developers Ltd vs Samuel V Thomas on 31 May, 2021
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
submitted that if there is any patent illegality in the award of the
7
Arbitration Appeal No.28 of 2009
Arbitrator or as contemplated under S. 34(2) (b) (ii) of the Act, if it is in
conflict with the public policy of India, the same can be looked into and
the court under Section 34, can certainly interfere. In this case, the
Arbitrator has awarded an amount of ₹25 lakhs by way of loss of stock of
raw bones, which according to the Insurance Company, is not 'stock in
process' and hence not covered by the terms of the policy. As amount has
been awarded for a head for which there is no insurance cover, the award
of the Arbitrator relating to the said portion is an illegality and against
public policy and hence the court below was justified in interfering with
the same, goes the argument. Reference was made to DLF Home
Developers Ltd. (M/s.) v. Martin George (2021 (3) KHC 590) , a
Division Bench decision of this Court and also Associate Builders v.
DDA (AIR 2015 SC 620) ; The Project Director, NHAI Nos.45 E
& 220, NHAI v. M.Hakeem & ors. [MANUPATRA 2020(4) CTC
582] and DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Martin George (2021 (3)
KLT Online 1019) in support of his argument.
Ssangyong Engineering And ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 8 May, 2019
As has been held in Ssangyong Engineering and
Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019 KHC 6554) in the light of
sub-section (3) to Section 28 of the Act, construction of the terms of a
contract is primarily for an Arbitrator to decide and therefore unless the
Arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair minded or
reasonable person would do, the intervention of the court with the
construction is absolutely uncalled for. If the view of the Arbitrator is a
plausible one, the court should refrain from interfering with the arbitral
16
Arbitration Appeal No.28 of 2009
award (DLF Home Developers Ltd.(M/S.) v. Martin George [2021
(3) KHC 590]). An interpretation placed on a contract by the Arbitrator,
even if erroneous, is only an error of fact which cannot be re-appreciated
by the court below (See Kochi Refineries Ltd. vs. M/s.Reva Enviro
Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2016 2 KHC 232]).
The Project Director National Highways ... vs M. Hakeem on 20 July, 2021
12. In the case on hand, the learned ADJ concluded that the
award so far as it allowed the claim for loss of stock of raw bones, is
17
Arbitration Appeal No.28 of 2009
incorrect and hence, the same was set aside. It was held that the award of
₹18,14,000/- towards loss of raw bones has to be excluded from the
award of ₹25 lakhs for the loss of stock. As the Surveyors had assessed
the loss of bone meal and tallow at ₹6,50,000/-, the claimant is entitled to
get only the said amount for loss of stock. The claimant is entitled only to
get a further amount of ₹9,99,714/- from the Insurance Company with
simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation. The direction
of the Arbitrator to the Insurance Company to pay the balance amount of
₹28,39,740/- was interfered with and an amount of ₹18,40,000/- was
deducted and the balance was directed to be paid to the claimant. This is
nothing but modification of the award of the Arbitrator which is
impermissible and beyond the jurisdiction of the court in a proceeding
under Section 34 of the Act (National Highways No. 45 E & 220
NHAI v. Hakeem [AIR 2021 SC 3471]). Further, none of the
infirmities pointed out by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases are made
out in the case on hand.
Section 28 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P.Ltd vs Amci (I) P.Ltd.& Anr on 27 July, 2009
15545 and 15546 0f 2017) ; UOI v. M/s. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. (Civil
Appeal No. 8530 of 2009) ; Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd.
v. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5139 of 2009) ; M/s.
Canara Nidhi Ltd. v. M. Shashikala (Civil Appeal No. 7544-7545
of 2019) and PSA Terminals Pvt. Ltd. v. The Board of Trustees of
V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin (Civil Appeal Nos.3699 &
3700 of 2018) in support of his arguments.
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
1