Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)M/S.J.G.Engineers Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 April, 2011
On this score, we are with the claimant. Mr. Gupta strenuously
urged this issue. According to him, as per the lay out plan a part of
the stock would have to be stored in the lower tire whereas the
balance was to be stored at the upper floor. Moreover, considering
the height of the floors having the capacity to stored goods, only
40% was availed in the upper floor whereas major part of the goods
were kept in the lower tire contrary to the conditions of the policy.
Upper floor was not damaged by the fire. Had the goods been kept
strictly as per the lay out plan, there would have been less damage
hence, the surveyor deducted a substantial part of the damage that
they assessed. He would refer to various clauses of the policy of
insurance and the evidence on the subject to support his
contention. He would also rely upon the decision cited in the case of
M/s. J.G. Engineers Private Limited (supra), to suggest, once
there was a breach the Insurance Company was entitled to
deduction on the basis of the presumption that the goods had not
been stored as per the lay out plan.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
The decision in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited Vs. Saw Pipes Limited reported in 2003 Volume-V
Supreme Court Cases Page-705 would hold the field.
If we look to the provisions of Section 34 we would find a very
limited scope for the arbitration Court to review an award and
interfere with the same. The scope of judicial interference could only
be possible when there was patent illegality ex facie apparent that
would amount to miscarriage of justice or the same was contrary to
the public policy and/or the law of the land. Otherwise, the Court
would be slow in interfering with the same. The Court would also
nullify an award when it was outside the scope of the arbitration
agreement that would permit the arbitrator to adjudicate. The
process of arbitration is recognized in law as an alternate dispute
resolution mechanism. The arbitrator, being the master of his own
procedure, may not have to follow the nitty-gritties of the
procedural law. He need not be a person having the vast knowledge
of law. He might be an expert on the subject that was brought to
him for adjudication. He might be a man of prudence that the
parties would think and thus entrust him to adjudicate upon their
discord outside the Court of law. Once the parties would agree to
have resolution of controversy by such mechanism, the Court would
have no power to upset the result unless it was contrary to public
policy or patently illegal, de hors the basic laws of the land. In
short, a fair decision by an arbitral Tribunal after adequate
opportunity given to the parties following the principles of natural
justice and adhering to the basic laws of the land, must not be
upset by Court. The Arbitration Court is not the Court of Appeal
over the decision of the Tribunal. Court is not an upper tire of
decision making process. It would only examine whether the
process was fair and would conform to the requirement that a
Tribunal should follow as per the agreement and in terms of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Under the new law of the
1996 the Court's power under the old law of 1940 had undergone a
severe change curtailing such power. The concept is to encourage
people to have the dispute resolved outside Court availing the
alternate mode and thus reducing the work load of the Court. It was
not the intention of the legislature, Court would act as a superior
body to the Tribunal.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
1