Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)The Arbitration Act, 1940
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
7. He, therefore, submitted that the termination
cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. Learned
advocate, Shri Vakil also referred to the impugned
order and also award of the Arbitrator. He
submitted that the Arbitrator has totally
Page 5 of 23
HC-NIC Page 5 of 23 Created On Mon Aug 14 16:21:17 IST 2017
C/FA/3216/2012 JUDGMENT
misdirected and exceeded jurisdiction. Learned
advocate, Shri Vakil submitted that the Arbitrator
has exceeded the jurisdiction and proceeded to
discuss and decide about the subject matter, which
was not forming part of the arbitration. He
submitted that the compensation for three months
is awarded without any justification or any
provision in the dealership agreement. Learned
advocate, Shri Vakil referred to and relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
M/s. Trojan and Co. Vs. R.M. N.N. Nagappa
Chettiar, reported in AIR 1953 SC 235 (Para
No.22).
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Amritsar Gas Service And Ors on 19 November, 1990
He
also referred to and relied upon the judgment in
case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amritsar
Gas Service & Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 533
and emphasized the observation made particularly
in Paragraph Nos.8 and 12. He submitted that the
Arbitrator has passed an award for restoring the
dealership though no such specific relief could be
given as the contract is terminated and as it is
based on the mutual agreement between the parties,
it could not have been directed to restore the
dealership. He has also referred to Section 14 of
the Special Relief Act and submitted that it
Page 7 of 23
HC-NIC Page 7 of 23 Created On Mon Aug 14 16:21:17 IST 2017
C/FA/3216/2012 JUDGMENT
provides the contract, which cannot be
specifically enforced and pointedly emphasized
14(c), which provides for "a contract which is in
its nature determinable". He, therefore, submitted
that the contract which is in its nature
determinable cannot be enforced and, therefore,
the Arbitrator could not have given such
direction. He submitted that similarly no
compensation could have been awarded.
E. Venkatakrishna vs Indian Oil Corporation And Anr. on 17 August, 2000
Learned
advocate, Shri Vakil referred to and relied upon
the judgment in case of E. Venkatakrishna Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation & Anr., reported in JT 2000
(10) 558 and submitted that as the Arbitrator has
exceeded jurisdiction and gone beyond the scope
while awarding damages, it may be quashed and set
aside. He also submitted that the petition is also
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in view of the decision in the present
appeal, it may not be maintainable as it may not
survive.