Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.22 seconds)Gold (Control) Act, 1968
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in Gold (Control) Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Sudarsan Trading Co vs Govt. Of Kerala & Anr on 14 February, 1989
In an another case, i.e., Sudersan Trading's case (supra) it was rules by the Apex Court that once there was no dispute as to the contract, what was the interpretation of that contract was the matter for the arbitrator and on which the Court would not substitute its own decision.
Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. vs Meena Vijay Khetan & Ors. on 11 May, 1999
21. As already noticed, under Clause (iv) of Section 34(2)(a), the arbitral award may be set aside by the Court if the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or it contains a decision on matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration. The words "term of the submission to arbitration occurring in the above section refer to the terms of the arbitration clause as has been held in Olympus Superstructure's case (supra). Therefore, if the arbitrator decides a dispute which is beyond the scope of the terms of arbitration or he makes the award in disregard of the terms of arbitration agreement, the award is liable to be set aside. It is apparent that the grounds as aforesaid, for setting aside an award under the Act is more or less the same and comprehend within its scope of the grounds under the Old Act as decided by the Apex Court.
Smt. Santa Sila Devi And Another vs Dhirendra Nath Sen And Others on 26 April, 1963
In 1963 the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Santa Sila Devi and Anr. v. Dhiredra Nath Sen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1677, dealing with a case of arbitral award emphasised that a court should appreciate an award with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal.
Indu Engineering & Textiles Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 July, 2001
The settled position has again been echoed in the case of Indu Engineering and Textile (supra), as cited by Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the appellant. In the said case, it was held that the court had consistently laid stress on the position that an arbitrator was a Judge appointed by the parties and hence the award passed by him was not lightly to be interfered with.