Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee vs Nilima Rani & Others on 17 October, 1969
23. Mr. Tiku submitted that an Award could be set aside only under one of
the grounds under Sections 30 and 33 of the 1940 Act. He further submitted
that the learned Arbitrator rightly drew the inference of BBL having waived
the condition regarding payment of the 60% of the contractual amount by
its own conduct. Reliance was placed on the decision in Jagad Bandhu
Chatterjee v. Smt. Nilima Rani 1969 (3) SCC 445.
M/S. Arosan Enterprises Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 September, 1999
22. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Society, on
the other hand, submitted that the learned Arbitrator had rejected the
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, only Claim No. 4 of the Society had been allowed
in the sum of Rs. 18.77 lakhs together with post-Award interest at 18% per
annum. Relying on the decisions in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of
India 1999 (6) SCALE 46; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions
IV (2003) SLT 873; M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co.
AIR 1987 SC 81 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath
Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 2316, he submitted that the Arbitrator was the
sole judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence. It was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that
the Arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact was no ground to challenge the
Award.
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
State Of Rahjasthan vs Puti Construction Co. Ltd on 16 September, 1994
30. The above minutes and correspondence show that the obligation of the
Society to complete the basic civil infrastructural works was in fact not
fulfilled even as on May 1993 in respect of one block, and as on August
CS (OS) No. 317A of 2000 Page 13 of 16
1993 in respect of remaining. The question of BBL therefore being able to
install the lifts without the above basic work being completed could not
have arisen. Although this Court is not expected to "re-appreciate" the
evidence, this is a case where the learned Arbitrator has completely ignored
the evidence on record and has simply not referred to it. The finding of the
learned Arbitrator that the preparatory work necessary for installation of the
lift was completed on 16th March 1990, is not supported by the evidence on
record. The above finding has been rendered ignoring the uncontroverted
evidence on record. Although the scope of interference by the Court with
an Award is limited, this is an instance, as explained in State of Rajasthan
v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. (1994) 6 SCC 485, where "the error of
finding of facts having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily
demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various
possible viewpoints."
State Of U.P vs Allied Constructions on 31 July, 2003
22. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Society, on
the other hand, submitted that the learned Arbitrator had rejected the
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, only Claim No. 4 of the Society had been allowed
in the sum of Rs. 18.77 lakhs together with post-Award interest at 18% per
annum. Relying on the decisions in Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of
India 1999 (6) SCALE 46; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Allied Constructions
IV (2003) SLT 873; M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co.
AIR 1987 SC 81 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath
Ashok Kumar AIR 1987 SC 2316, he submitted that the Arbitrator was the
sole judge of the quality and quantity of the evidence. It was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Court to re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that
the Arbitrator made a mistake of law or fact was no ground to challenge the
Award.
1