Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr on 20 September, 1999 cites

Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth And Others vs Chintamanrao Balaji And Others on 19 November, 1963

The Court further held as under: An arbitrator who acts in manifest disregard of the contract acts without jurisdiction. His authority is derived from the contract and is governed by the Arbitration Act which embodies principles derived from a specialised branch of the law of agency(see Mustill and Boyds Commercial Arbitration, 2nd edn., p. 641). He commits misconduct if by his award he decides matters excluded by the agreement(see Halsburys Laws of England, Volume II, 4th edn., para 622). A deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest disregard of his authority or a misconduct on his part, but it may tantamount to a mala fide action. A conscious disregard of the law or the provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority vitiates the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 191 - J C Shah - Full Document

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

Even if it is raised and referred to arbitration because of wider arbitration clause such claim amount cannot be awarded as agreement is binding between the parties and the arbitrator has to adjudicate as per the agreement. This aspect is absolutely made clear in Continental Construction Co. 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

Tarapore & Company vs Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Cochin & Anr on 6 March, 1984

After considering the decisions in Continental Construction Co.(supra) and Tarapore and Co. (supra), this Court held that as there was absence of escalation clause, it was not a case where on the basis of the terms of the agreement entered between the parties, it can be held that arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award. The Court observed that it cannot be held that arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make the award because of lack of specific provision permitting the claim at the hand. The Court further observed:- It has to be seen whether the term of the agreement permitted entertainment of the claim by necessary implication. It may be stated that we do not accept the broad contention of Shri Nariman that whatever is not excluded specifically by the contract can be subject-matter of claim by a contractor. Such a proposition will mock at the terms agreed upon. Parties cannot be allowed to depart from what they had agreed. Of course, if something flows as a necessary concomitant to what was agreed upon, courts can assume that too as a part of the contract between the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 142 - D A Desai - Full Document

A.M. Mair & Co vs Gordhandass Sagarmull on 30 November, 1950

The first case we would like to refer to is A.M. Mair & Co. Vs. Gordhandass Sagarmull [1950] SCR 792. The Court was concerned with the arbitration clause drawn up as : all matters, questions, disputes, differences and/or claims, arising out of and/or concerning, and/or in connection and/or in consequence of, or relating to, the contract etc.. The question arose whether the due date under the contract was extended within the time, earlier reserved. The arbitrator held that the due date of the contract has been extended by a mutual agreement and the respondents were held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4116 together with interest at the rates specified in the award. It was contended that the dispute is not covered by the arbitration clause. This clause while holding that the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause observed that looking to the rival contentions, such a dispute, the determination of which turns on the true construction of the contract, would also seem to be a dispute under or arising out of or concerning the contract. The test formulated was that if in settling a dispute, a reference to the contract is necessary, such a dispute would be covered by the arbitration clause.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - S S Ali - Full Document

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

While discussing the contention, the Court quoted the decision in the case of Sudarshan Trading Co. case (which we have earlier referred) and thereafter held that High Court has not rested its decision on any question of the arbitrator having exceeded his jurisdiction or travelled beyond the contract; the Court has set aside the award on the ground of error apparent on the face of it. The Court further held that clauses of the contract referred to by the High Court are not so clear or unambiguous as to warrant an inference that the interpretation placed on them by the arbitrators is totally unsustainable. In that view of the matter, the Court held that it was difficult to say that the arbitrators interpretation was erroneous on the face of it. Hence, the aforesaid decision would have no bearing to the facts and the law involved in this matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 613 - S Mukharji - Full Document

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

Further, dealing with the non-speaking award and also for the claims on the ground of escalation of price, due to various reasons including payment of minimum rates of wages payable to various categories of workers, this Court in Associated Engineering Co. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another [1991] 4 SCC 93 referred to the contract clauses and set aside the award by holding: - This conclusion is reached not by construction of the contract but by merely looking at the contract. The umpire travelled totally outside the permissible territory and thus exceeded his jurisdiction in making the award under those claims.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 345 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 28 August, 1992

Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1992] 4 SCC 217. In the said case, the Court has observed that award was a non- speaking one and contained no reasoning which could be declared to be faulty; the scope of the Courts jurisdiction in interfering with the non- speaking award is extremely limited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 115 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

The Managing Director, J. And K. ... vs M/S. Good Luck Carpets on 19 January, 1990

Similarly, in Managing Director, J&K Handicrafts, Jammu Vs. Good Luck Carpets [1990] 4 SCC 740, dealing with the non-speaking award, the Court negatived the contention that the agreement containing the arbitration clause cannot be looked into even to find out as to what was the nature of the dispute contemplated by it with regard to which a reference to an arbitrator was contemplated, nor so, when the award was non-speaking one, by observing thus: Firstly, the award is not a totally non-speaking one inasmuch as it gives a resume of the incentive scheme and the agreement between the parties as also the items of the claim made by the respondent. Of course while fixing the amount found payable by the appellant, no reasons are recorded. Secondly, if there is any challenge to the award on the ground that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award with regard to a particular item inasmuch as it was beyond the scope of reference, the only way to test the correctness of such a challenge is to look into the agreement itself. In our opinion, looking into the agreement for this limited purpose is neither tantamount to going into the evidence produced by the parties nor into the reasons which weighed with the arbitrator in making the award.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 Next