Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Itd Cementation India Ltd on 24 April, 2015 cites

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

16. Since it was argued that the Arbitral Tribunal disregarded the material terms of the Contract while making its assessment and failed to consider the impact of sub clauses 70.1 to 70.3 (B) and exclusion in sub clause 70.8, the law on the point needs to be briefly adverted to. In Mc Dermott International Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (Supra) this Court held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Kwality Manufacturing ... vs Central Warehousing Corporation on 23 February, 2009

“43. ... The umpire has considered the fact situation and placed a construction on the clauses of the agreement which according to him was the correct one. One may at the highest say that one would have preferred another construction of Clause 17.3 but that cannot make the award in any way perverse. Nor can one substitute one's own view in such a situation, in place of the one taken by the umpire, which would amount to sitting in appeal. As held by this Court in Kwality Mfg. Corpn. v. Central Warehousing Corpn. [(2009) 5 SCC 142 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 406] the Court while considering challenge to arbitral award does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator, which is what the High Court has practically done in this matter. The umpire is legitimately entitled to take the view which he holds to be the correct one after considering the material before him and after interpreting the provisions of the agreement. If he does so, the decision of the umpire has to be accepted as final and binding.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 226 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next